DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 06/11/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 06/11/2026 has been entered. Claims 71, 78-79 and 85-86 have been amended. Claims 1-70 are canceled. Claims 71-90 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/11/2026, have been fully considered and entered but they are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148
USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating
obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 71-74, 76, 78-81, 83, 85-87, and 89 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werb et al. (US 20170289812 A1) hereinafter Werb in view of Abraham (US 20160165519 A1) hereinafter Abraham.
Regarding claim 71,
Werb teaches a device, comprising: communication circuitry; and processing circuitry to: send, via the communication circuitry, a plurality of advertising beacons on an advertising channel of a wireless network (transmitting beacons/advertisements on a channel [0179]-[0180]), wherein the advertising beacons are to be received by client devices listening on the advertising channel (neighbor nodes may periodically listen to beacons on a radio channel [0180]), and wherein individual advertising beacons indicate: a time offset to a next synchronization beacon to be sent on the primary channel (beacon/advertisement containing time schedule information [0011]);
Werb does not explicitly teach individual advertising beacons comprise an indication of a primary channel of the wireless network; wherein the primary channel and the advertising channel are different; and sending, via the communication circuitry, a plurality of synchronization beacons on the primary channel.
Abraham teaches individual advertising beacons comprise an indication of a primary channel of the wireless network; wherein the primary channel and the advertising channel are different (a primary channel field 316 [0053]: Indicating the presence of the primary channel is a clear indication of having a dedicated primary channel. It is well-known to one with ordinary skills in the art to have separate or dedicated channel for discovery and operation. Please check the relevant reference found under the conclusion section); and sending, via the communication circuitry, a plurality of synchronization beacons on the primary channel (access point next target beacon transmission time (TBTT) offset (ANTO) field 312 [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Abraham to the teachings of Werb. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of improving communications between access points and stations in a wireless network (Abraham [0007]).
Regarding claim 72,
Werb and Abraham teach all the features of claim 71, as outlined above.
Werb further teaches the client devices are sensor devices, wherein individual sensor devices comprise one or more sensors (wireless devices with multiple sensors [0105]; Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 73,
Werb and Abraham teach all the features of claim 72, as outlined above.
Werb further teaches at least one of the sensor devices is: a sensor tag ( functional wireless devices with sensors [0105]; Fig. 1); a radio frequency identification tag; or an asset tracking device.
Regarding claim 74,
Werb and Abraham teach all the features of claim 71, as outlined above.
Werb further teaches the device is a gateway device associated with the wireless network (wireless device is a gateway device[0105]-[0111]).
Regarding claim 76,
Werb and Pandey teach all the features of claim 71, as outlined above.
Werb further teaches the advertising channel is known to at least some of the client devices (discovering cluster, DCs, stores a beaconing schedule for neighboring clusters being discovered, CBDs [0020]); the channel is unknown to at least some of the client devices prior to receiving an advertising beacon on the advertising channel (wireless entity performs scanning [0183]).
Werb does not explicitly teach the channel being a primary channel.
Abraham teaches the channel being a primary channel (a primary channel field 316 [0053]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Abraham to the teachings of Werb. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of improving communications between access points and stations in a wireless network (Abraham [0007]).
Regarding claim 78,
Werb and Abraham teach all the features of claim 71, as outlined above.
Werb further teaches individual advertising beacons further indicate a slot availability, wherein the slot availability indicates whether a slot is available to join the wireless network; or an authentication key for joining the wireless network (cryptographic authentication [0011]).
Claims [79-81, 83 and 85] “CRM” and claims [86-87 and 89] “method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims [71-73, 76 and 78] “device”, respectively.
Claims 75, 82 and 88 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werb et al. (US 20170289812 A1) hereinafter Werb and Abraham in further view of Fang et al. (US 9693367 B2) hereinafter Fang.
Regarding claim 75,
Werb and Abraham teach all the features of claim 71, as outlined above.
Werb further teaches contention-based transmission ([0376]-[0377]).
Werb and Abraham do not explicitly teach receiving, via the communication circuitry, a contention request to join the wireless network, wherein the contention request is received on the primary channel from one of the client devices.
Fang teaches receiving, via the communication circuitry, a contention request to join the wireless network, wherein the contention request is received on the primary channel from one of the client devices (performing a CSMA/CA where a contention request frame is transmitted on the primary channel by a device and received by other devices ; column 6; lines 59-67).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Fang to the teachings of Werb and Abraham. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would avoid collisions (Fang; column 1; lines 27-36).
Claim 82 “CRM” and Claim 88 “method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 75 “device”.
Claims 77, 84 and 90 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Werb and Abraham in further view of Kubo et al. (US 20150289207 A1) hereinafter Kubo.
Regarding claim 77,
Werb and Abraham teach all the features of claim 71, as outlined above.
Werb and Abraham do not explicitly teach the advertising beacons are transmitted more frequently than the synchronization beacons.
Kubo teaches the advertising beacons are transmitted more frequently than the synchronization beacons (transmitting multiple advertisement packets [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Kubo to the teachings of Werb and Abraham. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would allow monitoring beacons at multiple frequencies (Kubo [0058]).
Claim 84 “CRM” and Claim 90 “method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claim 75 “device”.
Conclusion
Relevant references found:
Tong (US 20130182652 A1, Fig. 5) explicitly teach the advertising channel and the operating (Tx/Rx) channel are different.
Ahmad (US 20120026941 A1, [0066][0080]) teaches the discovery beacon can be sent on a different channel from the operating one.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AYMAN A ABAZA whose telephone number is (571)270-0422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Deborah Reynolds, can be reached at 571-272-0734. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights