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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant has amended the claims and argues those amendments. Examiner agrees that the previous rejection has been overcome. However, new prior art teaches these limitations. Please see the rejections that follow.
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 13 and 43 are 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.
Regarding claim 13, claim 13 recites ‘the buffer’ There is lack of antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Please review all of your claims.
Regarding claim 43, claim 43 recites ‘a data tunnel’. It is unclear if this is the same data tunnel as claim 1 or a different one. Appropriate action is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 21, 41, 42, and 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kessler (2020/0356521).
Regarding claim 1, Kessler discloses a system for data networking, comprising: (See Kessler fig. 1; a data networking system)
a plurality of asynchronous data devices, each comprising a main-subordinate
communication protocol interface, (See Kessler fig. 1, para. 52; master slave communicating according to a standard (e.g. main-subordinate protocol); para. 54; bus 106 uses I2S, SPI, TDM, etc.; fig. 2; interface is connection to device; para. 220; fig. 16, 29; data tunnel slot for SPI may be used for asynchronous data (e.g. if the devices are sending and/or receiving asynchronous data then they are asynchronous devices))
the plurality of asynchronous data devices including a router device and a set of station devices interconnected via a two-wire bus, (See Kessler fig. 1, para. 53; master node (e.g. router), 102-1, which is connected to slave nodes, 102-2, (e.g. set of station devices) which are interconnected via two- wire bus, 106)
wherein each main-subordinate communication protocol interface is configured to couple to at least one other main-subordinate communication protocol interface in another asynchronous data device or to a peripheral device, and (See Kessler fig. 1, para. 59; bus 106 is interfaced through the salve devices and connect to peripheral devices)
wherein each main-subordinate communication protocol interface is further configured to transmit both synchronous data and asynchronous data over the two-wire bus between the router device and the set of station devices, (See Kessler para. 216, 220; fig. 16, 29; data tunnel slot for SPI may be used for asynchronous data (e.g. if the devices are sending and/or receiving asynchronous data then they are asynchronous devices); para. 55, 221; audio data slots for audio data which is synchronous)
wherein the system is configured to use periodic superframes to organize data
transmissions, and
wherein each superframe is divided into sections or time slots reserved for the synchronous data and other sections for the asynchronous data. (See Kessler fig. 29; superframe with reserved slots for data tunnel (e.g. asynchronous data) and audio (e.g. synchronous) ;see also para. 64; periodic superframe)
Regarding claim 5, Kessler discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the main-subordinate communication protocol interface comprises at least two of a Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI), an Inter-Integrated Circuit (I2C) interface, or an Inter-Integrated Sound (I2S)/Time Division Multiplex (TDM) interface. (See Kessler para. 54; bus 106 uses I2S, SPI, TDM, etc.; fig. 2 different interfaces using these protocols)
Regarding claim 6, Kessler discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the main-subordinate communication protocol interface comprises a Serial Peripheral Interface and a data tunnel having shared bandwidth and time shared between the set of station devices. (See Kessler para. 216, 220; fig. 16, 29; data tunnel slot for SPI may be used for asynchronous data (e.g. if the devices are sending and/or receiving asynchronous data then they are asynchronous devices); fig. 21, 29-31; last slave, non last slave (e.g. sharing bandwidth and time on the bus); see also para. 179, para. 64)
Regarding claim 7, Kessler discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein all of the station devices receive output data over the two-wire bus within a same superframe. (See Kessler para. 65; same superframe)
Regarding claim 8, Kessler discloses the system according to claim 7, wherein both a communication from the router device to at least one of the station devices and (See Kessler fig. 6, para. 57; master (e.g. router) sends data to one or more slaves (e.g. station devices)
a receipt acknowledgement of the communication from the at least one of the station devices to the router device are sent within the same superframe, (See Kessler para. 66-67; a SCF and SRF is executed in the same superframe; para. 101, fig. 6; ACK/NACK)
the at least one of the station devices including any of the station devices located along the two-wire bus, up to and including a last station device. (See Kessler para. 66-67; any device including a last station)
Regarding claim 9, Kessler discloses the system according to claim 7,
wherein communications along the two- wire bus occur in periodic superframes, and wherein each of the periodic superframes begins with a downstream synchronization control frame, and is divided into periods of downstream transmission, upstream transmission, and no transmission where the two-wire bus is not driven. (See Kessler fig. 4, para. 57; SCF is communicated in repeated superframes; para. 64; periodic superframes divided into downstream, upstream and no transmission (where the bus is not driven))
Regarding claim 10, Kessler discloses the system according to claim 9, wherein each superframe ends just prior to transmission of another downstream synchronization control frame. (See Kessler fig. 4, para. 64; periodic superframes divided into downstream, upstream and no transmission (where the bus is not driven); fig. 4; boundary between superframes)
Regarding claim 12, Kessler discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein each of the station devices is configured to independently initiate a communication transaction with the router device, and wherein the router device and the set of station devices are configured such that the router device coordinates round robin Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI) full duplex transactions with each of the station devices. (See Kessler fig. 9, para. 127; information is transmitted in round-robin fashion and it transmits both uplink and downlink; para. 126; master node starts superframe by transmitting a SCF (e.g. coordinates); para. 187; full-duplex using SPI )
Regarding claim 21, Kessler discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein a scheduler ticks up to a maximum rate, wherein for every tick, the router device performs a round-robin Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI) full duplex transaction among the set of station devices, sets an allotted rate as a division of the maximum rate, and sends the allotted rate to each of the station devices. (See Kessler fig. 9, para. 127; information is transmitted in round-robin fashion and it transmits both uplink and downlink; para. 126; master node starts superframe by transmitting a SCF (e.g. coordinates); para. 57; master transmits sync according to effective bit rate of 49.152Mbps, SPI; fig. 9, para. 125; master allocates according to slave device a number of time slots based upon demand; each station is given a number of time slots (e.g. a tick is the start of each time slot) some slave stations are given more slots (more ticks); the allocated rate is a function of the number of time slots and maximum rate of channel; additionally maximum rate is allocated rate as it can be divided by 1; para. 187; full-duplex using SPI )
Regarding claim 41, Kessler discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the main-subordinate communication protocol interface is configured to manage multiplexing and demultiplexing of data streams and (See Kessler para. 114; MUX; para. 116; DEMUX)
route the synchronous data and the asynchronous data to and from appropriate protocol interfaces of the main-subordinate communication protocol interface. (See Kessler para. 116; delivery of recovered data to I2S/TDM/PDM, I2C and SPI blocks; fig. 2, 62, 63; protocol circuitry and interfaces and routing traffic; para. 64; superframe)
Regarding claim 42, Kessler discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the main-subordinate communication protocol interface is configured to include one or more asynchronous communication protocol interfaces . (See Kessler fig. 2; SPI and/or I2C interface (e.g. asynchronous protocol); para. 216, 220; fig. 16, 29; data tunnel slot for SPI may be used for asynchronous data) and one or more synchronous communication protocol interfaces. (See Kessler fig. 2; I2S/TDM/PDM sync audio interface); para. 55; sync data)
Regarding claim 43, Kessler discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the main-subordinate communication protocol interface comprises a synchronous communication interface (See Kessler fig. 2; I2S/TDM/PDM sync audio interface); para. 55; sync data) and a data tunnel configured to respectively share bandwidth for both the synchronous data and the asynchronous data. (See Kessler para. 216, 220; fig. 16, 29; data tunnel slot for SPI may be used for asynchronous data (e.g. if the devices are sending and/or receiving asynchronous data then they are asynchronous devices); (See Kessler fig. 29; superframe with reserved slots for data tunnel (e.g. asynchronous data) and audio (e.g. synchronous) ;see also para. 64; periodic superframe)
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler (2020/0356521) and further in view of Purohit (2016/0043942).
Regarding claim 11, Kessler discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the router device and the set of station devices cooperatively map out the topology for forwarding data to each of the station devices, (See Kessler para. 78; in discovery mode master sends out signals and waits for responses to map out the topology of the slave nodes; para. 90; node ID are assigned when discovered) using at least one empty packet transmitted by at least one of the station devices to the router device to indicate data non-availability. (See Kessler para. 229; no content packet (e.g. empty packet) which indicates no data (e.g. data non-availability))
Kessler does not explicitly disclose populating a routing table maintained at the router device. However, Purohit does disclose populating a routing table maintained at the router device. (See Purohit fig. 1, 3A, 38, para. 41; DAO messages are received from child nodes and each parent device adds child node devices to its routing table and this information is aggregated and sent to its parent) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Kessler to include the teaching of populating a routing table maintained at the router device of Purohit with the motivation being to prevent flooding of traffic throughout a network by only selectively forwarding based upon device locations and further to reduce broadcast traffic on a network which wastes limited bandwidth.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler (2020/0356521) and further in view of Pecen (2014/0369245) and further in view of Kim (2004/0147286).
Regarding claim 13, Kessler discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein a device-to-device transfer mechanism is used for general purpose input output (GPIO) signaling over a distance such that each of the station devices signals the router device (See Kessler para. 136; GPIO sent over distance using I2C) and using round robin. (See Kessler fig. 9, para. 127; information is transmitted in round-robin fashion and it transmits both uplink and downlink)
Kessler does not explicitly disclose regarding a presence of impending data for transmission and provides in-band signaling to the router device indicative of a status of a data buffer associated with the station device. However, Pecen does disclose regarding a presence of impending data for transmission and provides in-band signaling to the router device indicative of a status of a data buffer associated with the station device. (See Pecen para. 25; in-band signaling including buffer size (e.g. impending data inside buffer) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Kessler to include the teaching of regarding a presence of impending data for transmission and provides in-band signaling to the router device indicative of a status of a data buffer associated with the station device of Pecen with the motivation being to optimally schedule limited network resources to meet demands and further to ensure receipt of packets to only retransmit packets as needed which optimizes limited wireless resource.
Kessler in view of Pecen does not explicitly disclose in response to receiving the status of the data buffer from a station device, the router device analyzes data transmission need of the station device and adjusts a frequency for that station in response to the need. However, Kim does disclose in response to receiving the status of the data buffer from a station device, the router device analyzes data transmission need of the station device and adjusts a frequency for that station in response to the need. (See Kim para. 8) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Kessler in view of Pecen to include the teaching of in response to receiving the status of the data buffer from a station device, the router device analyzes data transmission need of the station device and adjusts a frequency for that station in response to the need of Kim with the motivation being to prevent buffer overruns and further to ensure the network is meeting the demands of end-users/devices and further to meet temporary increase in demands from one device.
Claims 14, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler (2020/0356521) and further in view of Teo (8,930, 573).
Regarding claim 14, Kessler discloses the system according to claim 1. Kessler does not explicitly disclose wherein the router device stores information about a respective station device and tags the information with a respective station device unique hardware ID that uniquely identifies the respective station device. However, Teo does disclose wherein the router device stores information about a respective station device and tags the information with a respective station device unique hardware ID that uniquely identifies the respective station device. (See Teo fig. 5, abstract, col. 9, lines 14-25; MAC address (e.g. unique hardware ID) is used to uniquely identify the node and store information about destination and IP address) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Kessler to include the teaching of wherein the router device stores information about a respective station device and tags the information with a respective station device unique hardware ID that uniquely identifies the respective station device of Teo with the motivation being to speed network operations by knowing destinations and further to reduce network flooding and further to allow for advanced flow control to meet QoS and end user goals and requirements.
Regarding claim 16, Kessler in view of Teo discloses the system according to claim 14, wherein the information is stored in an index-based cache having an index system based on station device unique hardware IDs to facilitate index-based retrieval of the information for each of the station devices. (See Teo fig. 5, col. 9, lines 14-25; table (e.g. an index system) with the MAC address and other information; it is stored in a memory or cache) The motivation being to speed network operations by knowing destinations and further to reduce network flooding and further to allow for advanced flow control to meet QoS and end user goals and requirements.
Regarding claim 17, Kessler in view of Teo discloses the system according to claim 16, wherein the information comprises routing information of the respective station device. (See Teo fig. 5, col. 9, lines 14-25; table (e.g. an index system) with the MAC address and other information; it is stored in a memory or cache) The motivation being to speed network operations by knowing destinations and further to reduce network flooding and further to allow for advanced flow control to meet QoS and end user goals and requirements.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler (2020/0356521) and further in view of Teo (8,930, 573) and further in view of Gray (7,631,064) and further in view of Chen (2002/0122412).
Regarding claim 15, Kessler in view of Teo discloses the system according to claim 14. Kessler in view of Teo do not explicitly disclose wherein in a subsequent on power cycle, sending to the network the respective station device unique hardware ID and the network uses the information stored for the respective station device. However, Gray does disclose wherein in a subsequent on respective station device. However, Gray does disclose wherein in a subsequent on power cycle, sending to the network the respective station device unique hardware ID and the network uses the information stored for the respective station device. (See Gray col. 5, lines 23-45; device power cycles and sends unique hardware ID) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Kessler in view of Teo to include the teaching of wherein in a subsequent on power cycle, sending to the network the respective station device unique hardware ID and the network uses the information stored for the respective station device of Gray with the motivation being to allow for efficient routing and further to allow for resetting of network devices and further to automatically populate routing tables which is efficient for changing network device configurations.
Kessler in view of Teo in view of Gray do not explicitly disclose wherein the network device inquires for device for an ID. However, Chen does disclose wherein the network device inquires for device for an ID. (See Chen para. 9) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Kessler in view of Teo in view of Gray to include the teaching of wherein the network device inquires for device for an ID of Chen with the motivation being to allow for efficient routing and further to find the most efficient network path and further to prevent unnecessary flooding of packets in a network.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler (2020/0356521) and further in view of Teo (8,930, 573) and further in view of Karaoguz (2010/0250747).
Regarding claim 18, Kessler in view of Teo discloses the system according to claim 16. Kessler in view of Teo do not explicitly disclose wherein the information comprises operating parameters of the respective station device. However, Karaoguz does disclose wherein the information comprises operating parameters of the respective station device. (See Karaoguz para. 48; profile is stored) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Kessler in view of Teo to include the teaching of wherein the information comprises operating parameters of the respective station device of Karaoguz with the motivation being to save time and further to specifically tailor parameters to meet network and/or end user/ device and further to reduce reconnection time.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler (2020/0356521) and further in view of Loh (2011/0174138).
Regarding claim 19, Kessler discloses the system according to claim 1. Kessler discloses peripherals at slave nodes through serial audio interfaces. (See Kessler para. 59) Kessler does not explicitly disclose a MIDI router connecting instrument endpoints. However, Loh does disclose a MIDI router connecting instrument endpoints. (See Loh fig. 1, para. 24; MIDI router with instruments connected) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Kessler to include the teaching of a MIDI router connecting instrument endpoints of Loh with the motivation being to provide compatibility with a widely accepted installed MIDI devices and further to save time and money by utilizing a known standard which allows for quicker implementation and further to allow for quick transposition and tempo adjustments without losing sound quality, making it ideal for music production and songwriting.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler (2020/0356521) and further in view of Sindhu (2015/0280939).
Regarding claim 20, Kessler discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the router device uses and bandwidth allocation scheme comprising identifying a network bus packet rate for each station device, and estimating a transmission time for one network bus packet based on a bandwidth and a SPI rate. (See Kessler para. 57; master transmits sync according to effective bit rate of 49.152Mbps, SPI; fig. 9, para. 125; master allocates according to slave device a number of time slots based upon demand; transmission time is a factor of the effective bit rate and amount of data based upon the bandwidth)
Kessler does not explicitly disclose using flow control and tunnels. However, Sindhu does disclose using flow control and tunnels. (See Sindhu para. 63) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Kessler to include the teaching of using flow control and tunnels of Sindhu with the motivation being to prevent the end device from being over burdened and further for security purposes and further to provide compatibility and further to prevent buffer overflow.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler (2020/0356521) and further in view of Chow (6,438,134).
Regarding claim 22, Kessler discloses the system according to claim 21, wherein each of a plurality of ticks guarantees a minimum bandwidth for each of the station devices, and (See Kessler fig. 9; minimum bandwidth is 0) Kessler does not explicitly disclose wherein the stealing a time between ticks for flow control and caters an instantaneous bandwidth request made by any of the station devices. However, Chow does disclose wherein the stealing a time between ticks for flow control and caters an instantaneous bandwidth request made by any of the station devices. (See Chow col. 2, lines 11-18, fig. 2; allocating unused bandwidth between transmissions for other transmissions) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Kessler to include the teaching of wherein the stealing a time between ticks for flow control and caters an instantaneous bandwidth request made by any of the station devices of Chow with the motivation being to maximize resources by using unused bandwidth for other transmissions as needed which reduces delay and increases network utilization.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler (2020/0356521) and further in view of Enami (2015/0363353)
Regarding claim 39, Kessler discloses the system according to claim 5, wherein the main-subordinate communication protocol interface uses the I2S/TDM interface to transmit and receive data in alignment with a global clock, (See Kessler para. 54; bus 106 uses I2S, SPI, TDM, etc.; fig. 2 different interfaces using these protocols; para. 74; I2S/TDM/PDM transceiver operating with BCLK/SYNC and synchronous audio slots; para. 55, 57; master-provided operational/synchronous clock derived from SCF)
wherein asynchronous data transfers by any or both of the SPI or the I2C interface occur in designated time slots or interleaved with the synchronous data. (See Kessler fig. 29; superframe with reserved slots for data tunnel (e.g. asynchronous data) and audio (e.g. synchronous); fig. 29-34; DTTNSLOTS/DTUPSLOTS and offsets placing asynchronous tunnel data before, inside, or after synchronous DNSLOTS/UPSLOTS) (See Kessler para. 216, 220; fig. 16, 29; data tunnel slot for SPI may be used for asynchronous data (e.g. if the devices are sending and/or receiving asynchronous data then they are asynchronous devices); fig. 21, 29-31; last slave, non last slave (e.g. sharing bandwidth and time on the bus); see also para. 179, para. 64)
Kessler do not explicitly disclose wherein I2C and SPI operate independently of a global clock. However, Enami does disclose wherein I2C and SPI operate independently of a global clock. (See Enami para. 103; I2C and SPI operate asynchronously (e.g. independent of global clock)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Kessler to include the teaching of wherein I2C and SPI operate independently of a global clock of Enami with the motivation being to maximize limited network resources by transmitting other protocols over a network which saves time and money (as opposed to having a separate network for each).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 23, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kessler (2020/0356521).
Regarding claim 23, Kessler discloses a method, comprising:
providing a plurality of asynchronous data devices, each comprising a main-subordinate communication protocol interface, (See Kessler fig. 1, para. 52; master slave communicating according to a standard (e.g. main-subordinate protocol); para. 54; bus 106 uses I2S, SPI, TDM, etc.; fig. 2; interface is connection to device; para. 220; fig. 16, 29; data tunnel slot for SPI may be used for asynchronous data (e.g. if the devices are sending and/or receiving asynchronous data then they are asynchronous devices))
the plurality of asynchronous data devices including a router device and a set of station devices interconnected via a two-wire bus; (See Kessler fig. 1, para. 53; master node (e.g. router), 102-1, which is connected to slave nodes, 102-2, (e.g. set of station devices) which are interconnected via two- wire bus, 106)
configuring each main-subordinate communication protocol interface to couple to at least one other main-subordinate communication protocol interface in another asynchronous data device or to a peripheral device; and (See Kessler para. 216, 220; fig. 16, 29; data tunnel slot for SPI may be used for asynchronous data (e.g. if the devices are sending and/or receiving asynchronous data then they are asynchronous devices); para. 55, 221; audio data slots for audio data which is synchronous; see also fig. 1; peripheral devices)
transmitting, by each main-subordinate communication protocol interface, both
synchronous data and asynchronous data over the two-wire bus between the router device and the set of station devices, (See Kessler para. 216, 220; fig. 16, 29; data tunnel slot for SPI may be used for asynchronous data (e.g. if the devices are sending and/or receiving asynchronous data then they are asynchronous devices); para. 55, 221; audio data slots for audio data which is synchronous)
wherein the transmitting uses periodic superframes to organize data transmissions, and wherein each superframe is divided into sections or time slots reserved for the synchronous data and other sections for the asynchronous data. (See Kessler fig. 29; superframe with reserved slots for data tunnel (e.g. asynchronous data) and audio (e.g. synchronous) ;see also para. 64; periodic superframe)
Regarding claim 27, Kessler discloses the method according to claim 23, further comprising providing the main- subordinate communication protocol interface to include a Serial Peripheral Interface and a data tunnel having shared bandwidth and time shared between the set of station devices. (See Kessler para. 216, 220; fig. 16, 29; data tunnel slot for SPI may be used for asynchronous data (e.g. if the devices are sending and/or receiving asynchronous data then they are asynchronous devices); fig. 21, 29-31; last slave, non last slave (e.g. sharing bandwidth and time on the bus); see also para. 179, para. 64)
Regarding claim 28, Kessler discloses the method according to claim 23, further comprising receiving, by all of the station devices, output data over the two-wire bus within a same superframe. (See Kessler para. 65; same superframe)
Regarding claim 29, Kessler discloses the method according to claim 28, further comprising sending both a communication from the router device to at least one of the station devices and (See Kessler fig. 6, para. 57; master (e.g. router) sends data to one or more slaves (e.g. station devices)
a receipt acknowledgement of the communication from the at least one of the station devices to the router device within the same superframe, (See Kessler para. 66-67; a SCF and SRF is executed in the same superframe; para. 101, fig. 6; ACK/NACK)
the at least one of the station devices including any of the station devices located along the two-wire bus, up to and including a last station device. (See Kessler para. 66-67; any device including a last station)
Regarding claim 30, Kessler discloses the method according to claim 28, further comprising causing communications along the two-wire bus to occur in periodic superframes, wherein each of the periodic superframes begins with a downstream synchronization control frame, and is divided into periods of downstream transmission, upstream transmission, and no transmission where the two- wire bus is not driven. (See Kessler fig. 4, para. 57; SCF is communicated in repeated superframes; para. 64; periodic superframes divided into downstream, upstream and no transmission (where the bus is not driven))
Regarding claim 31, Kessler discloses the method according to claim 30, further comprising ending each superframe just prior to transmission of another downstream synchronization control frame. (See Kessler fig. 4, para. 64; periodic superframes divided into downstream, upstream and no transmission (where the bus is not driven); fig. 4; boundary between superframes)
Regarding claim 33, Kessler discloses the method according to claim 23, further comprising configuring each of the station devices to independently initiate a communication transaction with the router device, wherein the router device and the set of station devices are configured such that the router device coordinates round robin Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI) full duplex transactions with each of the station devices. (See Kessler fig. 9, para. 127; information is transmitted in round-robin fashion and it transmits both uplink and downlink; para. 126; master node starts superframe by transmitting a SCF (e.g. coordinates); para. 187; full-duplex using SPI )
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.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler (2020/0356521) and further in view of Purohit (2016/0043942).
Regarding claim 32, Kessler discloses the method according to claim 23, wherein the router device and the set of station devices cooperatively map out the topology for forwarding data to each of the station devices, (See Kessler para. 78; in discovery mode master sends out signals and waits for responses to map out the topology of the slave nodes; para. 90; node ID are assigned when discovered) using at least one empty packet transmitted by at least one of the station devices to the router device to indicate data non-availability. (See Kessler para. 229; no content packet (e.g. empty packet) which indicates no data (e.g. data non-availability))
Kessler does not explicitly disclose populating a routing table maintained at the router device. However, Purohit does disclose populating a routing table maintained at the router device. (See Purohit fig. 1, 3A, 38, para. 41; DAO messages are received from child nodes and each parent device adds child node devices to its routing table and this information is aggregated and sent to its parent) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Kessler to include the teaching of populating a routing table maintained at the router device of Purohit with the motivation being to prevent flooding of traffic throughout a network by only selectively forwarding based upon device locations and further to reduce broadcast traffic on a network which wastes limited bandwidth.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler (2020/0356521) and further in view of Pecen (2014/0369245) and further in view of Kim (2004/0147286).
Regarding claim 34, Kessler discloses the method according to claim 23, wherein a device-to-device transfer mechanism is used for general purpose input output (GPIO) signaling over a distance such that each of the station devices signals the router device (See Kessler para. 136; GPIO sent over distance using I2C) and using round robin. (See Kessler fig. 9, para. 127; information is transmitted in round-robin fashion and it transmits both uplink and downlink)
Kessler does not explicitly disclose regarding a presence of impending data for transmission and provides in-band signaling to the router device indicative of a status of a data buffer associated with the station device. However, Pecen does disclose regarding a presence of impending data for transmission and provides in-band signaling to the router device indicative of a status of a data buffer associated with the station device. (See Pecen para. 25; in-band signaling including buffer size (e.g. impending data inside buffer) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Kessler to include the teaching of regarding a presence of impending data for transmission and provides in-band signaling to the router device indicative of a status of a data buffer associated with the station device of Pecen with the motivation being to optimally schedule limited network resources to meet demands and further to ensure receipt of packets to only retransmit packets as needed which optimizes limited wireless resource.
Kessler in view of Pecen does not explicitly disclose in response to receiving the status of the data buffer from a station device, the router device analyzes data transmission need of the station device and adjusts a frequency for that station in response to the need. However, Kim does disclose in response to receiving the status of the data buffer from a station device, the router device analyzes data transmission need of the station device and adjusts a frequency for that station in response to the need. (See Kim para. 8) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Kessler in view of Pecen to include the teaching of in response to receiving the status of the data buffer from a station device, the router device analyzes data transmission need of the station device and adjusts a frequency for that station in response to the need of Kim with the motivation being to prevent buffer overruns and further to ensure the network is meeting the demands of end-users/devices and further to meet temporary increase in demands from one device.
Claim 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler (2020/0356521) and further in view of Teo (8,930, 573).
Regarding claim 35, Kessler discloses the method according to claim 23, Kessler does not explicitly disclose wherein the router device stores information about a respective station device and tags the information with a respective station device unique hardware ID that uniquely identifies the respective station device. However, Teo does disclose wherein the router device stores information about a respective station device and tags the information with a respective station device unique hardware ID that uniquely identifies the respective station device. (See Teo fig. 5, abstract, col. 9, lines 14-25; MAC address (e.g. unique hardware ID) is used to uniquely identify the node and store information about destination and IP address) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Kessler to include the teaching of wherein the router device stores information about a respective station device and tags the information with a respective station device unique hardware ID that uniquely identifies the respective station device of Teo with the motivation being to speed network operations by knowing destinations and further to reduce network flooding and further to allow for advanced flow control to meet QoS and end user goals and requirements.
Regarding claim 37, Kessler in view of Teo discloses the method according to claim 35, wherein the information is stored in an index-based cache having an index system based on station device unique hardware IDs to facilitate index-based retrieval of the information for each of the station devices. (See Teo fig. 5, col. 9, lines 14-25; table (e.g. an index system) with the MAC address and other information; it is stored in a memory or cache) The motivation being to speed network operations by knowing destinations and further to reduce network flooding and further to allow for advanced flow control to meet QoS and end user goals and requirements.
Claim 36 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler (2020/0356521) and further in view of Gray (7,631,064) and further in view of Chen (2002/0122412).
Regarding claim 36, Kessler in view of Teo discloses the method according to claim 35, Kessler in view of Teo do not explicitly disclose wherein in a subsequent on power cycle, sending to the network the respective station device unique hardware ID and the network uses the information stored for the respective station device. However, Gray does disclose wherein in a subsequent on respective station device. However, Gray does disclose wherein in a subsequent on power cycle, sending to the network the respective station device unique hardware ID and the network uses the information stored for the respective station device. (See Gray col. 5, lines 23-45; device power cycles and sends unique hardware ID) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Kessler in view of Teo to include the teaching of wherein in a subsequent on power cycle, sending to the network the respective station device unique hardware ID and the network uses the information stored for the respective station device of Gray with the motivation being to allow for efficient routing and further to allow for resetting of network devices and further to automatically populate routing tables which is efficient for changing network device configurations.
Kessler in view of Teo in view of Gray do not explicitly disclose wherein the network device inquires for device for an ID. However, Chen does disclose wherein the network device inquires for device for an ID. (See Chen para. 9) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Kessler in view of Teo in view of Gray to include the teaching of wherein the network device inquires for device for an ID of Chen with the motivation being to allow for efficient routing and further to find the most efficient network path and further to prevent unnecessary flooding of packets in a network.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kessler (2020/0356521) and further in view of Sindhu (2015/0280939).
Regarding claim 38, Kessler discloses the method according to claim 23, wherein the router device uses and bandwidth allocation scheme comprising identifying a network bus packet rate for each station device, and estimating a transmission time for one network bus packet based on a bandwidth and a SPI rate. (See Kessler para. 57; master transmits sync according to effective bit rate of 49.152Mbps, SPI; fig. 9, para. 125; master allocates according to slave device a number of time slots based upon demand; transmission time is a factor of the effective bit rate and amount of data based upon the bandwidth)
Kessler does not explicitly disclose using flow control and tunnels. However, Sindhu does disclose using flow control and tunnels. (See Sindhu para. 63) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Kessler to include the teaching of using flow control and tunnels of Sindhu with the motivation being to prevent the end device from being over burdened and further for security purposes and further to provide compatibility and further to prevent buffer overflow.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm est.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at (571) 272-3155. 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights