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 .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 01/07/2026 has been entered. Claims 71-90 are pending in the current application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/07/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 71, 79, and 86; they are not persuasive.
Applicant argument,
As an example, the cited combination fails to disclose "wherein individual advertising beacons indicate... a primary channel of the wireless network," as recited by Claim 71. The Examiner alleges that these claim limitations are satisfied by Pandey's disclosure of an "indication of specific channel." Office Action at 3 (citing Pandey at 5:20-26). However, Pandey merely discloses that communication occurs on specific channels Pandey has no disclosure of sending an advertising beacon that indicates the primary channel on which communication occurs. See, e.g., Pandey at 5:22-26 ("[C]ommunication between nodes 112 and/or between nodes 112 and gateway 103 occurs only at specific times and on specific channels for local and global data communications.") (emphasis added).
As another example, the cited combination fails to disclose "send...a plurality of advertising beacons on an advertising channel of a wireless network, ... wherein individual advertising beacons indicate... a time offset to a next synchronization beacon to be sent on the primary channel," as recited by Claim 71. The Examiner alleges that these claim limitations are satisfied by Werb's disclosure of transmitting beacons/advertisements containing time schedule information on a channel. Office Action at 3 (citing Werb 11, 179-80).
First, Werb merely discloses that a wireless entity may periodically listen for beacons on one or more radio channels using passive and/or active scanning-Werb has no disclosure of using different channels for different types of beacons, including an advertising channel for advertising beacons and a primary channel for synchronization beacons. See, e.g., Werb 180 ("a WSN wireless entity searching for a neighbor may periodically listen for beacons on one radio channel, multiple radio channels, and/or a series of radio channels"), 179 ("a wireless entity may discover a network prior to joining Beaconing neighbors, i.e. other WSN wireless entities in the vicinity that are transmitting beacons (sometimes called advertisements), [sic] using passive scanning, active scanning, or a combination of passive and active scanning").
Next, Werb merely discloses that a beacon may include a time/frequency schedule of beacons from devices in a cluster-Werb has no disclosure that the beacon may include a time offset to a next synchronization beacon to be sent on the primary channel. See, e.g., Werb 11 ("A beacon from a CBD may include some combination of... a time/frequency schedule of beacons from devices in the CBD").
For at least these reasons, independent Claim 71 is allowable over the cited art. Independent Claims 79 and 86 recite limitations similar to those recited in independent Claim 71 and thus are allowable for analogous reasons. Moreover, the remaining dependent claims are allowable at least because they each depend from an allowable independent claim. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully requests that the rejections of all pending claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 be withdrawn.
Reply, examiner respectfully disagrees.
The applicant argues that Pandey fails to teach the indication of a primary channel of a wireless network. However, according to the claim, what distinguishes the primary channel from the advertising channel is that it carries synchronization beacons at a particular time offset, where the time offset is indicated through the advertising channel. There is no such thing as a synchronization beacon sitting alone. In other words, the channel carrying the synchronization beacons is the primary channel. In Werb, the “radio channels” would equate to the “primary channel” as claimed. This is because the primary channel, as defined in the claim in light of the specification (for example paragraph [0300]), equates to the radio channel of Werb ([0011]-“ A limited number of radio channels may be used for transmission of beacons and/or solicitations….”).
For Pandey, the “specific channels” corresponds to the primary channel as claimed. This is because the primary channel, as defined in the claim in light of the specification (for example paragraph [0300]), equates to the specific channel of Pandey. In the disclosure of Pandey handles wireless sensor networks, WSN, where communication between nodes and the gateway occur at specific times and on specific channels, as mentioned previously (column 5; lines 22-26). The nodes in the WSN may communicate periodic beacons, where these beacons are used for synchronization (column 5; lines 5-11 and lines 20-26). Since these are utilized to initialize communication on the specific channels, the beacons themselves indicate which channels are used to be used. This practice is well-known in the art as shown in column 2, lines 41-54 cited below:
“(13) U.S. Pat. No. 5,515,369 describes a technology for use in a wireless packet communication system having a plurality of nodes, each having a transmitter and a receiver, the receiver at each node is assigned a seed value and is provided with a channel punchout mask. A node uses its seed value and punchout mask to generate a specific randomly ordered channel hopping band plan on which to receive signals. A node transmits its seed value and punchout mask to target nodes with which it wants to establish communication links, and those target nodes each use the seed value and punchout mask to generate the randomly ordered channel hopping band plan for that node. Subsequently, when one of the target nodes wishes to transmit to the node, the target node changes frequency to the frequency of the node according to that node's band plan.”
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
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 Pandey et al. (US 8,532,003 B2) hereinafter Pandey.
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 further indicate: a primary channel of the wireless network; and send, via the communication circuitry, a plurality of synchronization beacons on the primary channel.
Pandey teaches individual advertising beacons further indicate: a primary channel of the wireless network (indication of specific radio channel; column 5; lines 20-26); and send, via the communication circuitry, a plurality of synchronization beacons on the primary channel (message for synchronization on a specific channel; column 5; lines 20-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Pandey to the teachings of Werb. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce wakeup time period (Pandey; column 4; lines 4-17).
Regarding claim 72,
Werb and Pandey 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 Pandey 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 Pandey 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.
Pandey teaches the channel being a primary channel (message for synchronization on a specific channel; column 5; lines 20-26).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add the teachings of Pandey to the teachings of Werb. One would have been motivated to do so, with a reasonable expectation of success, because it would reduce wakeup time period (Pandey; column 4; lines 4-17).
Regarding claim 78,
Werb and Pandey 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” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 71-73, 76 and 78 “device”, respectively.
Claim 86-87 and 89 “method” are rejected under the same reasoning as claims 71-72 and 76 “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 Pandey in further view of Fang et al. (US 9693367 B2) hereinafter Fang.
Regarding claim 75,
Werb and Pandey teach all the features of claim 71, as outlined above.
Werb further teaches contention-based transmission ([0376]-[0377]).
Werb and Pandey 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 Pandey. 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” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 75 “device”.
Claim 88 “method” is 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 Pandey in further view of Kubo et al. (US 20150289207 A1) hereinafter Kubo.
Regarding claim 77,
Werb and Pandey teach all the features of claim 71, as outlined above.
Werb and Pandey 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 Pandey. 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” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 75 “device”.
Claim 90 “method” is rejected under the same reasoning as claim 75 “device”.
Conclusion
The following reference(s) are cited but not relied on for rejection purposes:
US 20130070751 A1
US 20090010210 A1
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI whose telephone number is (703)756-4586. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5:00 PM ET. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on (571)270-0422. 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.
/ABDUL AZIZ SANTARISI/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/John Pezzlo/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2465 B
9 March 2026