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 but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues the claims as amended. Examiner agrees that all of the amendments are not addressed in the previous rejection. However, the following addresses these amendments.
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, 5, 39, 11, and 32 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 2, claim 2 recites ‘…wherein the two-wire bus includes a plurality of daisy-chained nodes, and wherein the synchronous data and the asynchronous data are transmitted between the router device and at least one station device through a subset of the plurality of daisy-chained nodes…’ This limitation is unclear. That is, it is unclear what nodes are actually being claimed here. Fig. 1 for example shows a two wire bus, 106, which connects the main node (router) and sub nodes (e.g. set of station devices) and these devices are daisy chained. However, the drawing does not show one two-wire bus (the two wire bus) connecting the main node to the sub nodes to other nodes. At best, these are two or more separate busses. Therefore, it appears that Applicant is just renaming the station devices as daisy-chained nodes. In other words, Applicant is making the claim unclear by just renaming devices with another name in the middle of the claim. Therefore, it is not clear what Applicant is attempting to claim.
Regarding claims 5 and 39, claim 5 recites ‘…wherein the main-subordinate communication protocol interface comprises an interface having at least two of a Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI), an Inter-Integrated Circuit (l2C) interface, or an Inter-Integrated Sound (l2S)/Time Division Multiplex (TDM) interface…’ It is unclear what Applicant is attempting to claim. Fig. 1 of the specification shows two different interfaces but not one interface that has two different protocol interfaces. That is, 106 shows a two wire bus which is connected via an interface. However, this interface does not connect the peripheral devices who have a separate different interface. Therefore, it is not know what Applicant is attempting to claim. Claim 39 does not cure the deficiencies of claim 39 and is rejected for similar reasons.
Regarding claim 39, claim 39 recites ‘can occur in designated time slots or interleaved with the synchronous data…’ The word ‘can’ makes this whole limitation optional and not required. Therefore, it is unclear what the metes and bounds of this limitation is.
Regarding claim 39, claim 39 recites ‘asynchronous data transfers by any or both of the SPI or the I2C interface…’ SPI and I2C are synchronous interfaces. Therefore it is not clear what Applicant is attempting to claim.
Regarding claim 11, claim 11 recites ‘…comprises using at least one empty packet transmitted by at least one of the station devices to the router device when there is no asynchronous device message…’ This limitation is unclear. Who or what is using an empty packet? Using how? The claim says an empty packet is used (by someone or something) when there is no asynchronous device message. So if there is no message an empty packet is used? This does not make sense. If there is no message then the empty packet is not used. Please review your claims.
Regarding claim 32, claim 32 recites ‘…comprises using at least one empty packet transmitted by at least one of the station devices to the router device when there is no asynchronous device message…’ This limitation is unclear. Who or what is using an empty packet? Using how? The claim says an empty packet is used (by someone or something) when there is no asynchronous device message. So if there is no message an empty packet is used? This does not make sense. If there is no message then the empty packet is not used. Please review your claims.
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, 2, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865).
Regarding claim 1, Chavez discloses a system for data networking, comprising: (See Chavez fig. 1; a system of data networking)
a plurality of data devices, each comprising a main-subordinate communication protocol interface, the plurality of data devices including a router device and a set of station devices interconnected via a two-wire bus; (See Chavez fig. 1; master node, slave nodes, and/or peripheral device (e.g. data devices); master node (e.g. router device; in that it routes all traffic between Host and slaves) and Slave Nodes (e.g. station devices); para. 37; two-wire bus; fig. 1; AP, AN, BP, BN and I2S TDM/PDM, I2C(e.g. main-subordinate communication protocol interface))
wherein each main-subordinate communication protocol interface is configured to
couple to at least one other main-subordinate communication protocol interface in another data device or to a peripheral device, and (See Chavez para. 40, fig. 1; master node and slave nodes have AP, AN, BN, BP (e.g. main-subordinate communication protocol interface) which are connected together and connected to peripheral devices)
wherein each main-subordinate communication protocol interface is further configured to transmit both synchronous data over the two-wire bus between the router device and the set of station devices. (See Chavez para. 39; master node (e.g. router device) sends and receives synchronous data over the bus)
Chavez discloses sending synchronous data over a synchronous channel. (See Chavez para. 39) Chavez does not explicitly disclose sending asynchronous data. However, Zhang does disclose sending asynchronous data. (See Zhang para. 2) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Chavez to include the teaching of sending asynchronous data of Zhang with the motivation being to allow for flexibility and adaptability and further to reduce costs by using a channel that is already available and further to allow for all types of data to be sent across a channel thusly allowing for more types of devices to be connected to the network which saves time and money and meets end user goals and further to meet diverse applications to meet end user goals.
Regarding claim 2, Chavez in view of Zhang discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the two-wire bus includes a plurality of daisy-chained nodes, and wherein the synchronous data and the data are transmitted between the router device and at least one station device through a subset of the plurality of daisy-chained nodes. (See Chavez fig. 1; Slave Nodes (e.g. daisy-chained nodes; fig. 1 show these slaves are daisy-chained) and data is transmitted between the router and the slave node 2 for example (e.g. at least one station device) through a subset of daisy chained nodes (slave node 1, 0) of plurality of daisy-chained nodes); see also 112)
Chavez does not explicitly disclose sending asynchronous data. However, Zhang does disclose sending asynchronous data. (See Zhang para. 2) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Chavez to include the teaching of sending asynchronous data of Zhang with the motivation being to allow for flexibility and adaptability and further to reduce costs by using a channel that is already available and further to allow for all types of data to be sent across a channel thusly allowing for more types of devices to be connected to the network which saves time and money and meets end user goals and further to meet diverse applications to meet end user goals.
Regarding claim 5, Chavez in view of Zhang discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein the main-subordinate communication protocol interface comprises an interface having at least two of a Serial Peripheral Interface (SPI), an Inter-Integrated Circuit (l2C) interface, or an Inter-Integrated Sound (l2S)/Time Division Multiplex (TDM) interface. (See Chavez fig. 1; I2S/TDM, I2C)
Regarding claim 7, Chavez in view of Zhang 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 Chavez fig. 4, 8, para. 8; devices receive and send data over bus in a superframe; see also fig. 11, 15)
Regarding claim 8, Chavez in view of Zhang discloses the system according to claim 7, wherein both a communication from the router device to at least one of the station devices and 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, 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 Chavez fig. 8; downstream communication to station devices and upstream communication from devices is within the same superframe; the upstream frame starts with a start response frame; fig. 5; synchronization control frame and fig. 6; ACK/NACK sent in response frames; see also para. 61-67)
Regarding claim 9, Chavez in view of Zhang 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 Chavez fig. 4, para. 63; periodic superframe which starts with SCF (downstream sync control frame), has a DS (downstream) and US (upstream) and periods of no transmission 196)
Regarding claim 10, Chavez in view of Zhang discloses the system according to claim 9, wherein each superframe ends just prior to transmission of another downstream synchronization control frame. (See Chavez fig. 4, para. 63; superframe ends just prior to another superframe starting with SCF)
Regarding claim 19, Chavez in view of Zhang discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein at least one of the station devices is a Musical Instrument Digital Interface (MIDI) end point. (See Chavez para. 129; MIDI device)
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865) and further in view of Enami (2015/0363353) and further in view of Kim (2006/0188257).
Regarding claim 39, Chavez in view of Zhang 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 Chavez fig. 1, para. 38; TDM (time division multiplexing which by definition has a shared clock so devices know when to transmit); para. 38; clock sync (e.g. global clock))
Chavez in view of Zhang 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 Chavez in view of Zhang 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).
Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Enami does not explicitly disclose asynchronous data transfers can be in designated time slots or interleaved with synchronous data. However, Kim does disclose asynchronous data transfers can be in designated time slots or interleaved with synchronous data. (See Kim fig. 5; async frame interleaved with sync frame; designated slot is sync frame; para. 16; time slots) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Enami to include the teaching of asynchronous data transfers can be in designated time slots or interleaved with synchronous data of Kim with the motivation being to maximize channel usage and further to ensure QoS requirements for synchronous data and further to maximize limited resources to meet end user goals while providing flexibility.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865) and further in view of Maruko (2011/0320853) and further in view of Bryden (2003/0108051).
Regarding claim 6, Chavez in view of Zhang discloses the system according to claim 1. wherein the main-subordinate communication protocol interface comprises a
Interface having shared bandwidth and time shared between the set of station devices.
(See Chavez para. 26; TDM; para. 38; I2S/TDM bus or I2Cbus; fig. 8-12; time
shared bus among a plurality of station devices) Chavez in view of Zhang do not explicitly disclose wherein the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface. However, Maruko does disclose the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface. (See Maruko para. 5; SPI bus is widely used) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Chavez in view of Zhang to include the teaching of the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface of Maruko with the motivation being to provide compatibility with systems that already use SPI and further because it is widely used and accepted (See Maruko para. 5).
Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Maruko do not explicitly disclose using a data
tunnel. However, Bryden does disclose using a data tunnel. (See Bryden para. 34,
fig. 1; CE creates a tunnel which is shared among devices 52,53) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date
to modify the system of Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Maruko to include the teaching of using a data tunnel of Bryden with the motivation being for security and further to effectively manage bandwidth usage and further to meet end user/device goals and further to meet QoS goals and further to maximize limited bandwidth.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865) and further in view of Purohit (2016/0043942).
Regarding claim 11, Chavez in view of Zhang discloses the system according to claim 1. Chavez in view of Zhang do not explicitly disclose wherein the router device and the set of station devices cooperatively populate a routing table maintained at the router device for forwarding data to each of the station devices, wherein a cooperative router table population scheme cooperatively performed by the router device and the set of station devices comprises using at least one empty packet transmitted by at least one of the station devices to the router device when there is no asynchronous device message. Purohit does disclose wherein the router device and the set of station devices cooperatively populate a routing table maintained at the router device for forwarding data to each of the station devices, wherein a cooperative router table population scheme cooperatively performed by the router device and the set of station devices comprises using at least one empty packet transmitted by at least one of the station devices to the router device when there is no asynchronous device message. (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; DAO messages are empty of user data and contain only network control information and indicate that currently there is no data to send/receive because the network has not been set up yet) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Chavez in view of Zhang to include the teaching of wherein the router device and the set of station devices cooperatively populate a routing table maintained at the router device for forwarding data to each of the station devices, wherein a cooperative router table population scheme cooperatively performed by the router device and the set of station devices comprises using at least one empty packet transmitted by at least one of the station devices to the router device when there is no asynchronous device message of Purohit with the motivation being to allow flexibility in network hierarchical structure for optimizing limited resources and further to allow for adjustments in network structure as configurations change which saves time and money.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865) and further in view of Maruko (2011/0320853) and further in view of Abdul Kalam (2020/0341934).
Regarding claim 12, Chavez in view of Zhang 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 wherein the router device and the set of station devices are configured such that the router device coordinates round-robin transactions with each of the stations. (See Chavez para. 108, fig. 9; device labeled slave or labeled master (e.g. router); information is transmitted in round-robin fashion and it transmits in both uplink and downlink; para. 107; master node starts superframe by transmitting a SCF (e.g. coordinates))
Chavez in view of Zhang do not explicitly disclose wherein the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface. However, Maruko does disclose the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface. (See Maruko para. 5; SPI bus is widely used) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Chavez in view of Zhang to include the teaching of the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface of Maruko with the motivation being to provide compatibility with systems that already use SPI and further because it is widely used
and accepted (See Maruko para. 5). Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Marko do not explicitly disclose using fullduplex. However, Abdul Kalam does disclose using full-duplex. (See Abdul Kalam para. 50) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Marko to include the teaching of using full-duplex of Abdul Kalam with the motivation being to increase bandwidth and further to reduce delay and latency.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865) and further in view of Pecen (2014/0369245) and further in view of Kim (2004/0147286).
Regarding claim 13, Chavez in view of Zhang discloses the system according to claim 1, wherein a device-to-device transfer mechanism is used for general purpose input output (GPIO) signaling such that each of the station devices signals the router device (See Chavez para. 41; GPIO) and using round robin. (See Chavez para. 108, fig. 9; device labeled slave or labeled master (e.g. router); information is transmitted in round-robin fashion and it transmits in both uplink and downlink)
Chavez in view of Zhang do 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 Chavez in view of Zhang 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.
Chavez in view of Zhang 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 Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Kim 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 Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865) and further in view of Teo (8,930, 573).
Regarding claim 14, Chavez in view of Zhang discloses the system according to claim 1. Chavez in view of Zhang 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 Chavez in view of Zhang 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, Chavez in view of Zhang 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, Chavez in view of Zhang 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 Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865) and further in view of Teo (8,930, 573) and further in view of Gray (7,631,064) and further in view of Chen (2022/0122412).
Regarding claim 15, Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Teo discloses the system according to claim 14. Chavez in view of Zhang 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 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 Chavez in view of Zhang 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.
Chavez in view of Zhang 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 Chavez in view of Zhang 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 Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865) and further in view of Teo (8,930,573) and further in view of Karaoguz (2010/0250747).
Regarding claim 18, Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Teo discloses the system according to claim 16. Chavez in view of Zhang 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 Chavez in view of Zhang 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 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865) and further in view of Maruko (2011/0320853) and further in view of Sindhu (2015/0280939).
Regarding claim 20, Chavez in view of Zhang 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 rate. (See Chavez para. 41; master transmits sync according to effective bit rate of 49.152Mbps; fig. 9; 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)
Chavez in view of Zhang do not explicitly disclose wherein the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface. However, Maruko does disclose the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface. (See Maruko para. 5; SPI bus is widely used) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Chavez in view of Zhang to include the teaching of the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface of Maruko with the motivation being to provide compatibility with systems that already use SPI and further because it is widely used and accepted (See Maruko para. 5).
Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Maruko 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 Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Maruko 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 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865) and further in view of Maruko (2011/0320853) and further in view of Abdul Kalam (2020/0341934).
Regarding claim 21, Chavez in view of Zhang 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 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 Chavez para. 41; master transmits sync according to effective bit rate of 49.152Mbps; fig. 9; 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)
Chavez in view of Zhang do not explicitly disclose wherein the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface. However, Maruko does disclose the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface. (See Maruko para. 5; SPI bus is widely used) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Chavez in view of Zhang to include the teaching of the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface of Maruko with the motivation being to provide compatibility with systems that already use SPI and further because it is widely used and accepted (See Maruko para. 5).
Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Marko do not explicitly disclose using full-duplex. However, Abdul Kalam does disclose using full-duplex. (See Abdul Kalam para. 50) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Marko to include the teaching of using full-duplex of Abdul Kalam with the motivation being to increase bandwidth and further to reduce delay and latency.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865) and further in view of Maruko (2011/0320853) and further in view of Abdul Kalam (2020/0341934) and further in view of Chow (6,438,134).
Regarding claim 22, Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Marko in view of Abdul Kalam 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 Chavez fig. 9; minimum bandwidth is 0) Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Marko in view of Abdul Kalam 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 Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Marko in view of Abdul Kalam 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 43 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865) and further in view of Bryden (2003/0108051).
Regarding claim 43, Chavez in view of Zhang discloses the system according to claim 1.
wherein the main-subordinate communication protocol interface to include a synchronous communication interface having shared bandwidth and time shared between the set of station devices. (See Chavez para. 26; TDM (synchronous; para. 38; I2S/TDM bus or I2Cbus; fig. 8-12; time shared bus among a plurality of station devices)
Chavez in view of Zhang do not explicitly disclose using a data tunnel. However, Bryden does disclose using a data tunnel. (See Bryden para. 34, fig. 1; CE creates a tunnel which is shared among devices 52,53) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Chavez in view of Zhang to include the teaching of using a data tunnel of Bryden with the motivation being for security and further to effectively manage bandwidth usage and further to meet end user/device goals and further to meet QoS goals and further to maximize limited bandwidth.
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 23, 24, 28, 29, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865).
Regarding claim 23, Chavez discloses a method, comprising:
providing a plurality of data devices, each comprising a main-subordinate communication protocol interface, the plurality of data devices including a router device and a set of station devices interconnected via a two-wire bus; (See Chavez fig. 1; master node, slave nodes, and/or peripheral device (e.g. data devices); master node (e.g. router device; in that it routes all traffic between Host and slaves) and Slave Nodes (e.g. station devices); para. 37; two-wire bus; fig. 1; AP, AN, BP, BN and I2S TDM/PDM, I2C(e.g. main-subordinate communication protocol interface))
configuring each main-subordinate communication protocol interface to couple to at least one other main-subordinate communication protocol interface in another data device or to a peripheral device; and (See Chavez para. 40, fig. 1; master node and slave nodes have AP, AN, BN, BP (e.g. main-subordinate communication protocol interface) which are connected together and connected to peripheral devices)
transmitting, by each main-subordinate communication protocol interface, both synchronous data over the two-wire bus between the router device and the set of station devices. (See Chavez para. 39; master node (e.g. router device) sends and receives synchronous data over the bus)
Chavez discloses sending synchronous data over a synchronous channel. (See Chavez para. 39) Chavez does not explicitly disclose sending asynchronous data. However, Zhang does disclose sending asynchronous data. (See Zhang para. 2) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Chavez to include the teaching of sending asynchronous data of Zhang with the motivation being to allow for flexibility and adaptability and further to reduce costs by using a channel that is already available and further to allow for all types of data to be sent across a channel thusly allowing for more types of devices to be connected to the network which saves time and money and meets end user goals and further to meet diverse applications to meet end user goals.
Regarding claim 24, Chavez in view of Zhang discloses the method according to claim 23, wherein the two-wire bus includes a plurality of daisy-chained nodes, and wherein the data is transmitted between the router device and at least one station device through a subset of the plurality of daisy-chained nodes. (See Chavez fig. 1; Slave Nodes (e.g. daisy-chained nodes; fig. 1 show these slaves are daisychained) and data is transmitted between the router and the peripheral devices through the slave nodes)
Regarding claim 28, Chavez in view of Zhang 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 Chavez fig. 4, 8, para. 8; devices receive and send data over bus in a superframe; see also fig. 11, 15)
Regarding claim 29, Chavez in view of Zhang 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 a receipt acknowledgement of the communication from the at least one of the station devices to the router device within the same superframe, 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 Chavez fig. 8; downstream communication to station devices and upstream communication from devices is within the same superframe; the upstream frame starts with a start response frame; fig. 5; synchronization control frame and fig. 6; ACK/NACK sent in response frames; see also para. 61-67)
Regarding claim 30, Chavez in view of Zhang discloses the method according to claim 28, further comprising causing communications along the two-wire bus 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 Chavez fig. 4, para. 63; periodic superframe which starts with SCF (downstream sync control frame), has a DS (downstream) and US (upstream) and periods of no transmission 196)
Regarding claim 31, Chavez in view of Zhang discloses the method according to claim 30, further comprising ending each superframe just prior to transmission of another downstream synchronization control frame. (See Chavez fig. 4, para. 63; superframe ends just prior to another superframe starting with SCF)
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865) and further in view of Maruko (2011/0320853) and further in view of Bryden (2003/0108051).
Regarding claim 27, Chavez in view of Zhang discloses the method according to claim 23, further comprising providing the main-subordinate communication protocol interface to include a Interface having shared bandwidth and time shared between the set of station devices. (See Chavez para. 26; TDM; para. 38; I2S/TDM bus or I2Cbus; fig. 8-12; time shared bus among a plurality of station devices)
Chavez in view of Mitter do not explicitly disclose wherein the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface. However, Maruko does disclose the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface. (See Maruko para. 5; SPI bus is widely used) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Chavez in view of Mitter to include the teaching of the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface of Maruko with the motivation being to provide compatibility with systems that already use SPI and further because it is widely used and accepted (See Maruko para. 5).
Chavez in view of Mitter in view of Maruko do not explicitly disclose using a data tunnel. However, Bryden does disclose using a data tunnel. (See Bryden para. 34, fig. 1; CE creates a tunnel which is shared among devices 52,53) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Chavez in view of Mitter in view of Maruko to include the teaching of using a data tunnel of Bryden with the motivation being for security and further to effectively manage bandwidth usage and further to meet end user/device goals and further to meet QoS goals and further to maximize limited bandwidth.
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865) and further in view of Purohit (2016/0043942).
Regarding claim 32, Chavez in view of Zhang discloses the method according to claim 23. Chavez in view of Zhang do not explicitly disclose wherein the router device and the set of station devices cooperatively populate a routing table maintained at the router device for forwarding data to each of the station devices, wherein a cooperative router table population scheme cooperatively performed by the router device and the set of station devices comprises using at least one empty packet transmitted by at least one of the station devices to the router device when there is no asynchronous device message. Purohit does disclose wherein the router device and the set of station devices cooperatively populate a routing table maintained at the router device for forwarding data to each of the station devices, wherein a cooperative router table population scheme cooperatively performed by the router device and the set of station devices comprises using at least one empty packet transmitted by at least one of the station devices to the router device when there is no asynchronous device message. (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; DAO messages are empty of user data and contain only network control information and indicate that currently there is no data to send/receive because the network has not been set up yet) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Chavez in view of Zhang to include the teaching of wherein the router device and the set of station devices cooperatively populate a routing table maintained at the router device for forwarding data to each of the station devices, wherein a cooperative router table population scheme cooperatively performed by the router device and the set of station devices comprises using at least one empty packet transmitted by at least one of the station devices to the router device when there is no asynchronous device message of Purohit with the motivation being to allow flexibility in network hierarchical structure for optimizing limited resources and further to allow for adjustments in network structure as configurations change which saves time and money.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865) and further in view of Maruko (2011/0320853) and further in view of Abdul Kalam (2020/0341934).
Regarding claim 33, Chavez in view of Zhang discloses the method according to claim 23, wherein each of the station devices is configured 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 transactions with each of the stations. (See Chavez para. 108, fig. 9; device labeled slave or labeled master (e.g. router); information is transmitted in round-robin fashion and it transmits in both uplink and downlink; para. 107; master node starts superframe by transmitting a SCF (e.g. coordinates))
Chavez in view of Zhang do not explicitly disclose wherein the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface. However, Maruko does disclose the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface. (See Maruko para. 5; SPI bus is widely used) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Chavez in view of Zhang to include the teaching of the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface of Maruko with the motivation being to provide compatibility with systems that already use SPI and further because it is widely used
and accepted (See Maruko para. 5). Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Marko do not explicitly disclose using fullduplex. However, Abdul Kalam does disclose using full-duplex. (See Abdul Kalam para. 50) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Marko to include the teaching of using full-duplex of Abdul Kalam with the motivation being to increase bandwidth and further to reduce delay and latency.
Claim 34 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865) and further in view of Pecen (2014/0369245) and further in view of Kim (2004/0147286).
Regarding claim 34, Chavez in view of Zhang discloses the method according to claim 23. wherein a device-to-device transfer mechanism is used for general purpose input output (GPIO) signaling such that each of the station devices signals the router device (See Chavez para. 41; GPIO) and using round robin. (See Chavez para. 108, fig. 9; device labeled slave or labeled master (e.g. router); information is transmitted in round-robin fashion and it transmits in both uplink and downlink)
Chavez in view of Zhang do 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 Chavez in view of Zhang 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.
Chavez in view of Zhang 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 Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Kim 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 35 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865) and further in view of Teo (8,930,573).
Regarding claim 35, Chavez in view of Zhang discloses the method according to claim 23. Chavez in view of Zhang 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 Chavez in view of Zhang 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, Chavez in view of Zhang 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 Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865) and further in view of Teo (8,930, 573) and further in view of Gray (7,631,064) and further in view of Chen (2022/0122412).
Regarding claim 36, Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Teo discloses the method according to claim 35. Chavez in view of Zhang 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 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 Chavez in view of Zhang 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.
Chavez in view of Zhang 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 Chavez in view of Zhang 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 Chavez (2016/0034417), and further in view of Zhang (2013/0070865) and further in view of Maruko (2011/0320853) and further in view of Sindhu (2015/0280939).
Regarding claim 38, Chavez in view of Zhang 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 rate. (See Chavez para. 41; master transmits sync according to effective bit rate of 49.152Mbps; fig. 9; 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)
Chavez in view of Zhang do not explicitly disclose wherein the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface. However, Maruko does disclose the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface. (See Maruko para. 5; SPI bus is widely used) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the system of Chavez in view of Zhang to include the teaching of the bus could be a Serial Peripheral Interface of Maruko with the motivation being to provide compatibility with systems that already use SPI and further because it is widely used and accepted (See Maruko para. 5).
Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Maruko 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 Chavez in view of Zhang in view of Maruko 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.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 40-42 are 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 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