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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2-3, 10-11 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 2-3, 10-11 teaches “determining that a better master exists within the first group if the TD of one wireless unit of the plurality of wireless units of the first group is lower than the ID of the master of the first group”, It is not clear and confusing what is “better master” and how to decide it based on lower ID, also it is no clear what “lower ID” is and how to be calculated or based on what. Claims 2-3, 10-11 in general are vague and clear. For purpose of examination, examiner will read the claim as broad as possible.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 9-10, 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer (US 20070202907) in view of Kurihara (US 20140082041).
Regarding claim 1, Shaffer teaches, a method implemented in a first wireless unit of a plurality of wireless units of a first group, each of the plurality of wireless units supporting wireless communication at least with other wireless units (abstract: interoperable communications with congestion management includes facilitating communications of a plurality of virtual talk groups. Each virtual talk group comprises a plurality of endpoints of different communication networks communicating using a respective communication channel. The method includes detecting, for a first virtual talk group of the plurality of virtual talk groups, a congestion event and, in response to detecting the congestion event, forming from the first virtual talk group one or more subgroups, each subgroup comprising at least two endpoints from the first virtual talk group. The method also includes assigning to each subgroup a respective alternate communication protocol for use by the plurality of endpoints of the subgroup),
the method comprising: first group and subgroups that is formed from groups of wireless units in the network from the first group (Paragraph 77, 93 and Fig. 4).
Shaffer does not teach each of the plurality of wireless units being configurable as one of a master and a slave, one wireless unit of the plurality of wireless units being configured as a master of the first group, determining whether a second wireless unit of the first group is configured as the master of the first group; if the second wireless unit is configured as the master of the first group, configuring the first wireless unit as a slave and joining the first wireless unit to the first group to communicate with the other wireless units; and if the second wireless unit is not configured as the master of the first group, configuring the first wireless unit as the master of the first group and one of forming the first group and joining the first group to communicate with the other wireless unit
Kurihara teaches each of the plurality of wireless units being configurable as one of a master and a slave, one wireless unit of the plurality of wireless units being configured as a master of the first group (Fig. 1, el. G1, G2 and MT 1-5, Paragraph 46), determining whether a second wireless unit of the first group is configured as the master of the first group (Paragraph 46: the master terminal MT5 forms a group G2 that includes the master terminal MT5 and the slave terminal MT4. On the other hand, the master terminal MT1 has not yet formed a group G1. When the master terminal MT1 forms the group G1, the master terminal MT1 separates the group G1 into a main group and a subgroup. Here, the main group is a group to which slave terminals MT that regularly accept process requests from the master terminal MT1 are registered. The subgroup is a group to which slave terminals MT that accept process requests ad interim from the master terminal MT1 are registered), if the second wireless unit is configured as the master of the first group, configuring the first wireless unit as a slave and joining the first wireless unit to the first group to communicate with the other wireless units (Paragraph 178-179: If the terminal MT does not already belong to another main group (step S1302: NO), the CPU 301 registers the master terminal MT that transmitted the group affiliation confirmation notification, as the master terminal MT of the main group (step S1303). The CPU 301 notifies the master terminal MT that transmitted the group affiliation confirmation notification, that the terminal MT does not belong to another main group (step S1304), and returns to step S1301), and if the second wireless unit is not configured as the master of the first group, configuring the first wireless unit as the master of the first group and one of forming the first group and joining the first group to communicate with the other wireless unit (Paragraph 180-188: Fig. 14: slave terminal MT notifies the master terminal MT of the group affiliation state of the slave terminal MT, If the terminal MT is not registered in the first group, the master terminal MT of the other group is again notified, enabling the master terminal MT to start the registration process. Consequently, other than the nearest group, if there is a group that will use the terminal MT for distributed processing, the terminal MT can be registered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Shaffer with Kurihara in order to improve the system and achieve more predictable, fast and reliable results in communication.
Regarding claim 4, Shaffer in view of Kurihara teaches, forming a second group including a plurality of wireless units of the second group; configuring a first wireless unit of the plurality of wireless units of the second group as a master of the second group; and configuring a second wireless unit of the plurality of wireless units of the second group as a slave of the second group (Kurihara: Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 6, Shaffer in view of Kurihara teaches, determining a total number of wireless units in the first group; determining a second group exists and a total number of wireless units in the second group; and joining at least a wireless unit of the first group to the second group if the total number of wireless units in the second group is greater than the total number of wireless units in the first group (Kurihara: Paragraph 115-116).
Regarding claim 9, see claim 1 rejection.
Regarding claim 10, see claim 2 rejections.
Regarding claim 12, see claim 4 rejections.
Regarding claim 14, see claim 6 rejections.
Claims 2, 8, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer (US 20070202907) in view of Kurihara (US 20140082041) in view of Stilp (US 20060132301).
Regarding claim 2, Shaffer in view of Kurihara teaches, assigning a wireless unit identification, ID, to each wireless unit of the plurality of wireless units of the first group (see Fig. 4, terminal ID); and (Paragraph 133: he monitoring unit 913 has a function of detecting a deterioration in the communication capability of the fourth device that is registered in the main group. For example, the monitoring unit 913 monitors the communication capability of a slave terminal MT, based on the strength of signals received from the slave terminal MT and detects deteriorations in the communication capability, thereby enabling the detection of slave terminals MT for which the transmission and reception of data becomes difficult).
Shaffer in view of Kurihara does not explicitly teach determining that a better master exists within the first group if the TD of one wireless unit of the plurality of wireless units of the first group is lower than the ID of the master of the first group
Stilp teaches in a wireless network determining that a better master exists within the first group if the TD of one wireless unit of the plurality of wireless units of the first group is lower than the ID of the master of the first group (Paragraph 156: determining that a better master exists within the first group if the TD of one wireless unit of the plurality of wireless units of the first group is lower than the ID of the master of the first group).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Shaffer with Kurihara with Stilp in order to improve the system and achieve more predictable and reliable results in communication.
Regarding claim 8, Shaffer in view of Kurihara teaches, the claimed method.
Shaffer in view of Kurihara does not teach wherein the plurality of wireless units support Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT).
Stilp in the same art of endeavor teach plurality of wireless units support Digital Enhanced Cordless Telecommunications (DECT) (Paragraph 152).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Shaffer with Kurihara with Stilp in order to increase security and efficiency and less power consumption.
Regarding claim 16, see claim 8rejection.
Claims 7, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shaffer (US 20070202907) in view of Kurihara (US 20140082041) in view of Wang (US 20060244624).
Regarding claim 7, Shaffer in view of Kurihara teaches, the claimed method.
Shaffer in view of Kurihara does not teach rejoining a third wireless unit to the first group based at least on a predefined criterion, the third wireless unit having previously split from the first group.
Wang teaches master-slave architecture for a radio frequency RF networked, Wang teaches rejoining a third wireless unit to the first group based at least on a predefined criterion, the third wireless unit having previously split from the first group (Paragraph 42: some of the slaves might have been out of power, as well, if they were on the same power line as the previous master. When they regain power, they go through power-up reset and then check the contents of their NVMs. As their NVMs indicate that they were was previously slaves of a network, they try to recover this role as a the slave 36, in the same network by attempting to enumerate using the previous network ID. The new master is able to accept them without user intervention since the new master has the information that the slave has been in this network before the power was out).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to modify Shaffer with Kurihara with Wang in order to improve the system and achieve more predictable and reliable results in communication.
Regarding claim 15, see claim 7 rejections.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 5, 11, 13 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARIA EL-ZOOBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3434. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7-4.
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, Carolyn Edward can be reached at (571)270-7136. 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.
/MARIA EL-ZOOBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2692
/CAROLYN R EDWARDS/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2692