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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claim 20, the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim does not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the language “non-transient computer readable carrier medium” can be interpreted to be a steady state signal. Examiner respectfully suggest replacing “non-transient” with “non-transitory.”
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10-11, 13-14, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Taylor et al. (US20180124785 hereinafter Taylor).
Regarding claims 1 and 19. Taylor teaches the method and apparatus for a hub configured for selective wireless communication over any channel of a plurality of wireless communication channels (fig. 15 and pars. 0148-0156, teaches a Limited Function Device (LFD) selecting to establish a relationship for communications among multiple channels of a wireless network), the hub being configured to:
transmit a response request (fig. 15 (step 1502) and pars. 0148-0149, teaches the LFD may send a network discovery solicitation message over multiple channels of a wireless network to create a communication relationship. Whereas, the language “network discovery solicitation message” reads as a response request), the response request comprising a request for at least one or any device receiving and processing at least part of the response request to transmit a response over a listening period (fig. 15 (step 1502) and pars. 0148-0149, teaches the network discovery solicitation message includes a directed network discovery information element indicating a listening window and may request to create a communication relationship with a parent);
during the listening period, listen to each channel of the plurality of channels (fig. 15 (step 1504) and pars. 0148-0151, teaches the LFD may listen, while frequency hopping during the listening window, for a network discovery message. Furthermore, the frequency hopping may be based on the channel list and the generator function that is implemented by the LFD. Whereas, the LFD may listen during the listening window, while frequency hopping based on the channel list and the generator function that is implemented by the LFD” reads as during the listening period, listen to each channel of the plurality of channels); and
determine an activity characteristic for each channel (fig. 15 (steps 1506-1508) and pars. 0148-0154, teaches the LFD may select an FFD to act as a parent based on load balancing information from each FFD that sends a network discovery message and/or a strength of a communication link between the LFD and the respective FFD. Whereas, the “load balancing information from each FFD that sends a network discovery message and/or a strength of a communication link between the LFD and the respective FFD” reads as determine an activity characteristic for each channel. Par. 0057, teaches Full Function Device (FFD))
based, at least in part, on activity received by the hub on the respective channel during the listening period (fig. 15 (steps 1506-1508) and pars. 0148-0154, teaches the LFD may receive, during the listening window, a network discovery message from multiple neighboring FFDs. Whereas, the network discovery message may include load balancing information regarding the FFD. Moreover, the LFD may select an FFD to act as a parent, based on load balancing information from each FFD that sends a network discovery message and/or a strength of a communication link between the LFD and the respective FFD).
Regarding claim 2. Taylor teaches the apparatus for claim 1. Taylor further teaches the activity comprises one or more responses transmitted responsive to at least part of the response request (fig. 16 (s 1602-1614) and pars. 0157-0164, teaches the FFD may receive a network discovery solicitation message which includes a directed network discovery information element indicating a listening window from an LFD to create a communication relationship and the FFD may send, during the listening window, the network discovery message. Whereas, the FFD transmitting the network discovery message during the listening window reads as responsive to at least part of the response request due to the network discovery solicitation message including the directed network discovery information element indicating a listening window).
Regarding claim 4. Taylor teaches the apparatus for claim 1. Taylor further teaches configured to identify a selection of at least one of the channels out of the plurality of wireless communication channels for wireless communication (fig. 15 (steps 1506-1508) and pars. 0148-0154, teaches the LFD may select an FFD to act as a parent, based on load balancing information from each FFD that sends a network discovery message and/or a strength of a communication link between the LFD and the respective FFD)
based, at least in part, on the activity characteristic for each channel (fig. 15 (steps 1506-1508) and pars. 0148-0154, teaches the LFD may select an FFD to act as a parent based on load balancing information from each FFD that sends a network discovery message and/or a strength of a communication link between the LFD and the respective FFD. Whereas, the “load balancing information from each FFD that sends a network discovery message and/or a strength of a communication link between the LFD and the respective FFD” reads as the activity characteristic for each channel).
Regarding claim 10. Taylor teaches the apparatus for claim 4. Taylor further the hub is configured to identify the selection of the at least one of the channels of the plurality of wireless communication channels for wireless communication (fig. 15 (steps 1506-1508) and pars. 0148-0154, teaches the LFD may select an FFD to act as a parent, based on load balancing information from each FFD that sends a network discovery message and/or a strength of a communication link between the LFD and the respective FFD)
based in part on the activity characteristic for each channel and in part using at least one additional metric (fig. 15 (steps 1506-1508) and pars. 0148-0154, teaches the LFD may select an FFD to act as a parent based on load balancing information from each FFD that sends a network discovery message and/or a strength of a communication link between the LFD and the respective FFD. Whereas, the “load balancing information from each FFD that sends a network discovery message and/or a strength of a communication link between the LFD and the respective FFD” reads as the activity characteristic for each channel and one additional metric).
Regarding claim 11. Taylor teaches the apparatus for claim 1. Taylor further teaches to transmit at least part of the response request at least once on each of the channels (fig. 15 and pars. 0148-0149, teaches the LFD may send a network discovery solicitation message over multiple channels of a wireless network, such as all available channels to create a communication relationship).
Regarding claim 13. Taylor teaches the apparatus for claim 1. Taylor further teaches to transmit the response request by transmitting response request signals for all of the plurality of wireless communications channels (fig. 15 and pars. 0148-0149, teaches the LFD may send a network discovery solicitation message over multiple channels of a wireless network, such as all available channels to create a communication relationship) before the listening period (fig. 15 and pars. 0148-0150, teaches at step 1502 the LFD may send a network discovery solicitation message which includes a directed network discovery information element indicating a listening window, then at step 1504 the LFD may listen, while frequency hopping during the listening window. Therefore, within the context of the figure and the passage, it is obvious the response request is transmitting before the listening period).
Regarding claim 14. Taylor teaches the apparatus for claim 1. Taylor further teaches the response request is configured to cause the at least one or any device receiving and processing at least part of the response request to transmit a response for most or all of the listening period (figs. 15-16 and par. 0149, teaches the LFD may send a network discovery solicitation message over multiple channels of a wireless network to create a communication relationship. Moreover, par. 0158, teaches the FFD may receive a network discovery solicitation message from an LFD to create a communication relationship and the network discovery solicitation message may include a directed network discovery information element indicating a listening window. Furthermore, pars. 0162-0164, teaches the FFD may frequency hop during the listening window based on information that is provided by the LFD in the network discovery solicitation message and the FFD may send, during the listening window, the network discovery message. Whereas, the FFD sending during the listening window on the frequency hopping schedule according to the network discovery solicitation message reads as the response request is configured to cause the at least one or any device receiving and processing at least part of the response request to transmit a response for most or all of the listening period).
Regarding claim 20. Taylor teaches a non-transient computer readable carrier medium comprising a computer program product configured such that (fig. 2 and pars. 0067-0068 teaches memory 212 of the LFD 300 includes computer-readable media such as volatile memory, such as random access memory (RAM) and/or non-volatile memory, such as read only memory (ROM) or flash RAM or any other non-transitory medium), when implemented on a hub (fig. 2 and pars. 0067-0068 teaches memory 212 of the LFD 300 include volatile and non-volatile, removable and non-removable media implemented in any method or technology for storage of information such as computer-readable instructions, data structures, program modules, or other data for execution by one or more processors of a computing device) that is configured for selective wireless communication over any channel of a plurality of wireless communication channels (fig. 15 and pars. 0148-0156, teaches a Limited Function Device (LFD) selecting to establish a relationship for communications among multiple channels of a wireless network), causes the hub to:
transmit a response request (fig. 15 (step 1502) and pars. 0148-0149, teaches the LFD may send a network discovery solicitation message over multiple channels of a wireless network to create a communication relationship. Whereas, the language “network discovery solicitation message” reads as a response request), the response request comprising a request for at least one or any device receiving and processing at least part of the response request to transmit a response over a listening period (fig. 15 (step 1502) and pars. 0148-0149, teaches the network discovery solicitation message includes a directed network discovery information element indicating a listening window and may request to create a communication relationship with a parent);
during the listening period, listen to each channel of the plurality of channels (fig. 15 (step 1504) and pars. 0148-0151, teaches the LFD may listen, while frequency hopping during the listening window, for a network discovery message. Furthermore, the frequency hopping may be based on the channel list and the generator function that is implemented by the LFD. Whereas, the LFD may listen during the listening window, while frequency hopping based on the channel list and the generator function that is implemented by the LFD” reads as during the listening period, listen to each channel of the plurality of channels); and
determine an activity characteristic for each channel (fig. 15 (steps 1506-1508) and pars. 0148-0154, teaches the LFD may select an FFD to act as a parent based on load balancing information from each FFD that sends a network discovery message and/or a strength of a communication link between the LFD and the respective FFD. Whereas, the “load balancing information from each FFD that sends a network discovery message and/or a strength of a communication link between the LFD and the respective FFD” reads as determine an activity characteristic for each channel. Par. 0057, teaches Full Function Device (FFD))
based, at least in part, on activity received by the hub on the respective channel during the listening period (fig. 15 (steps 1506-1508) and pars. 0148-0154, teaches the LFD may receive, during the listening window, a network discovery message from multiple neighboring FFDs. Whereas, the network discovery message may include load balancing information regarding the FFD. Moreover, the LFD may select an FFD to act as a parent, based on load balancing information from each FFD that sends a network discovery message and/or a strength of a communication link between the LFD and the respective FFD).
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US20180124785 hereinafter Taylor) in view of Fredriksson et al. (US20040047473 hereinafter Fredriksson).
Regarding claim 3. Taylor teaches the apparatus for claim 1. Taylor further teaches the activity received on the respective channel during the listening period is activity (fig. 15 (steps 1506-1508) and pars. 0148-0154, teaches the LFD may receive, during the listening window, a network discovery message from multiple neighboring FFDs)
However, the apparatus of Taylor explicitly fails to disclose, the listening period is activity that would subsequently be treated as noise by the hub during normal use of the hub.
Fredriksson disclosed apparatus, systems, and methods for noise, so Fredriksson is analogous to Taylor. Furthermore, Fredriksson teaches the listening period is activity that would subsequently be treated as noise by the hub during normal use of the hub (par. 0105, teaches during reception the signal which is to be received is sufficiently more powerful than all other signals, then all other signals will be interpreted as noise. Whereas, the language “during reception” reads as the listening period within the context of par. 0054, which teaches the movable node listens to the ongoing traffic passively for a time, and records the reception time for the message and the signal strength and par. 0060, which teaches the signal strength of the background noise is recorded).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the listening period is activity that would subsequently be treated as noise by the hub during normal use of the hub, as disclosed by Fredriksson with the apparatus of Taylor. The motivations for doing so would be to improve accuracy. (see Fredriksson par. 0053)
Claims 5, 7, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US20180124785 hereinafter Taylor) in view of Kulkarni et al. (US20170339587 hereinafter Kulkarni).
Regarding claim 5. Taylor teaches the apparatus for claim 4. Taylor further teaches to automatically selectively use the identified channel or channels for subsequent communications (fig. 15 and pars. 0148-0154, teaches the LFD may select an FFD to act as a parent (e.g., establish a relationship for communications in the future). Furthermore, par. 0187, teaches once an FFD is selected, the LFD may determine a sampled communication schedule to implement, which reads as automatically selectively use the identified channel).
However, although Taylor teaches subsequent communications (fig. 15 and pars. 0148-0154), the apparatus of Taylor explicitly fails to disclose, selectively use the identified channel or channels for subsequent communications with its associated peripherals
Kulkarni disclosed apparatus, systems, and methods for subsequent communications, so Kulkarni is analogous to Taylor. Furthermore, Kulkarni teaches selectively use the identified channel or channels for subsequent communications with its associated peripherals (fig. 3 and pars. 0037-0040, teaches the AP 100 communicates with its clients using the selected communication channel. Whereas, the language “the AP 100 communicates using the selected communication channel” reads as selectively use the identified channel for subsequent communications with its associated peripherals. Par. 0002, teaches access points (APs)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize selectively use the identified channel or channels for subsequent communications with its associated peripherals, as disclosed by Kulkarni with the apparatus of Taylor. The motivations for doing so would be to improve the channel selection. (see Kulkarni par. 0079)
Regarding claim 7. Taylor teaches the apparatus for claim 1. Taylor further teaches the at least one activity characteristic for a given wireless communication channel comprises or is indicative of at least one of: … received signal strength (fig. 15 (steps 1506-1508) and pars. 0148-0154, teaches the LFD may select an FFD to act as a parent based on load balancing information from each FFD that sends a network discovery message and/or a strength of a communication link between the LFD and the respective FFD. Whereas, the “strength of a communication link between the LFD and the respective FFD” reads as determine an activity characteristic for each channel. Par. 0057, teaches Full Function Device (FFD)); peak received signal strength (interpreted as alternative language/disposition limitation and therefore not required to be disclosed by the art made of record); and/or accumulated signal strength (interpreted as alternative language/disposition limitation and therefore not required to be disclosed by the art made of record).
However, although Taylor teaches received signal strength (fig. 15 (steps 1506-1508) and pars. 0148-0154), the apparatus of Taylor explicitly fails to disclose, the at least one activity characteristic for a given wireless communication channel comprises or is indicative of at least one of: average received signal strength; peak received signal strength; and/or accumulated signal strength.
Kulkarni disclosed apparatus, systems, and methods for average received signal strength, so Kulkarni is analogous to Taylor. Furthermore, Kulkarni teaches the at least one activity characteristic for a given wireless communication channel comprises or is indicative of at least one of: average received signal strength (fig. 3 and pars. 0037-0041, teaches calculating an interference metric for each of the monitored channels and selecting a communication channel by comparing the interference metrics for each of the channels. Whereas, par. 0029, teaches the interference metric is an average signal strength of the potentially interfering transmissions on the monitored channel); peak received signal strength (interpreted as alternative language/disposition limitation and therefore not required to be disclosed by the art made of record); and/or accumulated signal strength (interpreted as alternative language/disposition limitation and therefore not required to be disclosed by the art made of record).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the at least one activity characteristic for a given wireless communication channel comprises or is indicative of at least one of: average received signal strength, as disclosed by Kulkarni with and apparatus of Taylor. The motivations for doing so would be to improve the channel selection. (see Kulkarni par. 0079)
Regarding claim 8. Taylor teaches the apparatus for claim 4. Taylor further teaches the identification of the selection of the at least one of the channels of the plurality of wireless communication channels (fig. 15 (steps 1506-1508) and pars. 0148-0154, teaches the LFD may select an FFD to act as a parent, based on load balancing information from each FFD that sends a network discovery message and/or a strength of a communication link between the LFD and the respective FFD) comprises one of: identifying the selection of the at least one of the channels of the plurality of wireless communication channels having an activity characteristic indicative of and/or derived from one or more of: … received signal strength (fig. 15 (steps 1506-1508) and pars. 0148-0154, teaches the LFD may select an FFD to act as a parent based on load balancing information from each FFD that sends a network discovery message and/or a strength of a communication link between the LFD and the respective FFD), lowest peak received signal strength (interpreted as alternative language/disposition limitation and therefore not required to be disclosed by the art made of record); or identifying the selection of the at least one of the channels of the plurality of wireless communication channels for wireless communication from amongst any of the plurality of wireless communication channels for which the activity characteristic indicates activity below a threshold measure of activity (interpreted as alternative language/disposition limitation and therefore not required to be disclosed by the art made of record).
However, although Taylor teaches identifying the selection of the at least one of the channels of the plurality of wireless communication channels having an activity characteristic indicative of and/or derived from one or more of: … received signal strength (fig. 15 (steps 1506-1508) and pars. 0148-0154), the apparatus of Taylor explicitly fails to disclose, identifying the selection of the at least one of the channels of the plurality of wireless communication channels having an activity characteristic indicative of and/or derived from one or more of: lowest average received signal strength, lowest peak received signal strength; or identifying the selection of the at least one of the channels of the plurality of wireless communication channels for wireless communication from amongst any of the plurality of wireless communication channels for which the activity characteristic indicates activity below a threshold measure of activity.
Kulkarni further teaches identifying the selection of the at least one of the channels of the plurality of wireless communication channels having an activity characteristic indicative of and/or derived from one or more of: lowest average received signal strength (fig. 3 and pars. 0037-0041, teaches a communication channel is selected by comparing the interference metrics for each of the channels and selecting the channel having the lowest interference metric as the communication channel. Whereas, par. 0029, teaches the interference metric is an average signal strength of the potentially interfering transmissions on the monitored channel), lowest peak received signal strength (interpreted as alternative language/disposition limitation and therefore not required to be disclosed by the art made of record); or identifying the selection of the at least one of the channels of the plurality of wireless communication channels for wireless communication from amongst any of the plurality of wireless communication channels for which the activity characteristic indicates activity below a threshold measure of activity (interpreted as alternative language/disposition limitation and therefore not required to be disclosed by the art made of record).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize identifying the selection of the at least one of the channels of the plurality of wireless communication channels having an activity characteristic indicative of and/or derived from one or more of: lowest average received signal strength, as disclosed by Kulkarni with and apparatus of Taylor. The motivations for doing so would be to improve the channel selection. (see Kulkarni par. 0079)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US20180124785 hereinafter Taylor) in view of Marko et al. (US20130287212 hereinafter Marko), in further view of Kulkarni et al. (US20170339587 hereinafter Kulkarni).
Regarding claim 6. Taylor teaches the apparatus for claim 4. Taylor further teaches the hub is configured to subsequently receive from … a selection of the communication channel to be used for communication (fig. 15 and pars. 0149-0156, teaches the LFD may send a network discovery solicitation message including a channel information element indicating a channel list and a generator function that is implemented by the LFD (e.g., information regarding a channel plan), then the LFD may listen, while frequency hopping during the listening window, based on the channel list and the generator function that is implemented by the LFD, and the LFD may receive, during the listening window, a network discovery message from a FFD, then the LFD may select an FFD to act as a parent. Whereas, the “channel list and the generator function that is implemented by the LFD” reads as a selection of the communication channel to be used for communication. Therefore, the LFD receiving the network discovery message from a FFD, is from the selection of the communication channel to be used for communication).
However, the apparatus of Taylor explicitly fails to disclose, providing or output to a user at least one or each of: an indication of the identified channel or channels; an indication of the activity characteristic for one or more or each of the plurality of channels; the channels displayed preferentially or selectively according to the activity characteristic; wherein the hub is configured to subsequently receive from the user a selection of the communication channel to be used for communication; and thereafter selectively use the selected channel or channels for subsequent communications.
Marko disclosed apparatus, systems, and methods for user selection, so Marko is analogous to Taylor. Furthermore, Marko teaches providing or output to a user at least one or each of: an indication of the identified channel or channels (figs. 6-8 and pars. 0068-0072, teaches user selects multiple channels from among all of the channels that are broadcast simultaneously in a source stream for simultaneous buffering in a personalized radio channel playlist in a radio receiver 14. Furthermore, par. 0041, teaches the receiver selects multiple channels from among the plurality of broadcast channels and buffers content from the selected channels as they are received simultaneously via the received broadcast stream(s). The buffered content is used to generate a personalized radio channel playlist that gives a listener a personalized, multiple-channel listening experience. Whereas, par. 0060, teaches the radio receiver 14 provides the user with Display Modes A and B which displays the channels. Furth more, fig. 11 and pars. 0074-0075, teaches Active channels can be selected from a scrolling channel list that can include all broadcast channels in a source stream or favorite channels stored in the radio receiver 14); an indication of the activity characteristic for one or more or each of the plurality of channels (interpreted as alternative language/disposition limitation and therefore not required to be disclosed by the art made of record); the channels displayed preferentially or selectively according to the activity characteristic (interpreted as alternative language/disposition limitation and therefore not required to be disclosed by the art made of record);
wherein the hub is configured to subsequently receive from the user a selection of the communication channel to be used for communication (par. 0069, teaches a user selects multiple channels from among all of the channels that are broadcast simultaneously in a source stream for simultaneous buffering in a personalized radio channel playlist in a radio receiver 14. Thus, a user is exposed to the content on the multiple channels as it is received. Moreover, par. 0070 teaches the radio receiver 14 simultaneously extract one of several offered genre-based multiple-channel personalized radio configurations); and
thereafter selectively use the selected channel or channels for subsequent communications (par. 0069, teaches a user selects multiple channels from among all of the channels that are broadcast simultaneously in a source stream for simultaneous buffering in a radio receiver 14, thus a user is exposed to the content on the multiple channels as it is received. Whereas, the language “a user is exposed to the content on the multiple channels as it is received” reads as subsequent communications within the context of par. 0153, which teaches the radio receiver 14 and an IP receiver communicates preferences to a central location and par. 0004, teaches a receiver to enable exposure to content simultaneously transmitted on multiple channels).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize providing or output to a user at least one or each of: an indication of the identified channel or channels; wherein the hub is configured to subsequently receive from the user a selection of the communication channel to be used for communication; and thereafter selectively use the selected channel or channels for subsequent communications, as disclosed by Marko with the apparatus of Taylor. The motivations for doing so would be to improve users' experience. (see Marko par. 0149)
However, the combination of Taylor and Marko explicitly fails to disclose, using the selected channel or channels for subsequent communications with its associated peripherals
Kulkarni disclosed apparatus, systems, and methods for subsequent communications, so Kulkarni is analogous to Taylor. Furthermore, Kulkarni teaches using the selected channel or channels for subsequent communications with its associated peripherals (fig. 3 and pars. 0037-0040, teaches the AP 100 communicates with its clients using the selected communication channel. Whereas, the language “the AP 100 communicates using the selected communication channel” reads as selectively use the identified channel for subsequent communications with its associated peripherals. Par. 0002, teaches access points (APs)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize using the selected channel or channels for subsequent communications with its associated peripherals s, as disclosed by Kulkarni with the combination of Taylor and Marko. The motivations for doing so would be to improve the channel selection. (see Kulkarni par. 0079)
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US20180124785 hereinafter Taylor) in view of Kulkarni et al. (US20170339587 hereinafter Kulkarni), in view of Pandey (US20100026513), in further view of Zelinka (US20130281122).
Regarding claim 9. Taylor and Kulkarni teaches the apparatus for claim 7. Taylor further teaches the at least one activity characteristic comprises or is indicative …of: …received signal strength (fig. 15 (steps 1506-1508) and pars. 0148-0154, teaches the LFD may select an FFD to act as a parent based on load balancing information from each FFD that sends a network discovery message and/or a strength of a communication link between the LFD and the respective FFD), peak received signal strength (interpreted as alternative language/disposition limitation and therefore not required to be disclosed by the art made of record) over at least part or all of the listening period (fig. 15 (steps 1506-1508) and pars. 0148-0154, teaches the LFD may receive, during the listening window, a network discovery message from multiple neighboring FFDs. Whereas, the network discovery message may include load balancing information regarding the FFD).
However, although Kulkarni suggest a weighted sum (figs. 3-4 and pars. 0038 and 0047), the combination of Taylor and Kulkarni explicitly fails to disclose, a weighted sum or other weighted combination of at least two or more of: average received signal strength, peak received signal strength over at least part or all of the listening period.
Pandey disclosed apparatus, systems, and methods for a weighted sum, so Pandey is analogous to Taylor. Furthermore, Pandey teaches a weighted sum or other weighted combination of at least two or more of: ...received signal strength (fig. 5 and par. 0079 teaches calculating the weighted sum of the selected RSSI values. Furthermore, pars. 0024-0026, teaches selectively sorting and weighting the RSSIs and summing received by each AP. Par. 0019, teaches Received Signal Strength Indicator (RSSI). Examiners note: this limitation uses alternative language (least two or more), and thus only one of the limitations tied to the “least two or more” statement needs to be shown by the prior art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a weighted sum or other weighted combination of at least two or more of: ...received signal strength, as disclosed by Pandey with the combination of Taylor and Kulkarni. The motivations for doing so would be to improve locating schemes. (see Pandey par. 0023)
However, the combination of Taylor, Kulkarni and Pandey explicitly fails to disclose, combination of at least two or more of: average received signal strength, peak received signal strength.
Zelinka disclosed apparatus, systems, and methods for signal strength, so Zelinka is analogous to Taylor. Furthermore, Zelinka teaches combination of at least two or more of: average received signal strength, peak received signal strength (fig. 2 and pars. 0038 & 004-0046, teaches receiving one or more sets of signals from one or more APs, which include each set of signal metrics may include a peak RSSI and an average RSSI, two or more RSSIs corresponding to the two or more received signals. Par. 0032, teaches received signal strength indicator (RSSI)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize combination of at least two or more of: average received signal strength, peak received signal strength, as disclosed by Zelinka with the combination of Taylor, Kulkarni and Pandey. The motivations for doing so would be to increase the accuracy of the signal metrics. (see Zelinka par. 0040)
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US20180124785 hereinafter Taylor) in view of Gupta et al. (US20150003284 hereinafter Gupta).
Regarding claim 12. Taylor teaches the apparatus for claim 11. Taylor further teaches the response request (fig. 15 and par. 0149, teaches the network discovery solicitation message) comprises… and the hub is configured to transmit a response request signal … on each of the wireless communications channels (fig. 15 and par. 0149, teaches the LFD may send a network discovery solicitation message over multiple channels of a wireless network, such as all available channels).
However, the apparatus of Taylor explicitly fails to disclose, the request comprises a plurality of response request signals and the hub is configured to transmit a response request signal of the plurality of response request signals a plurality of times.
Gupta disclosed apparatus, systems, and methods for response request signals, so Gupta is analogous to Taylor. Furthermore, Gupta teaches the request comprises a plurality of response request signals (fig. 3 and pars. 0031-0037 teaches AP 110 is adapted to scan one or more other wireless channels. Furthermore, the scan sessions may be performed by active scanning a particular (wireless) foreign channel, where AP 110 transmits a message (e.g. PROBE REQUEST message), as a broadcast or unicast transmission, and subsequently monitors that particular foreign channel for one or more messages in response to the transmitted message (e.g. PROBE RESPONSE messages). Whereas, the plurality of broadcasted probe request for each wireless channel reads as a plurality of response request signals) and
the hub is configured to transmit a response request signal of the plurality of response request signals a plurality of times (fig. 3 and pars. 0031-0040, teaches AP 110 sends a PROBE REQUEST message that includes an information element containing the state information for AP 110 to the neighboring APs (e.g., neighboring APs 120.sub.1 and 120.sub.2) operating on the scanned channel during a scan interval. Furthermore, the AP 110 may repeat scans on all wireless channels, and repeat an attempt to scan the same foreign channel when a scan reject occurred. Furthermore, fig. 7 (step 740) and pars. 0054-0056, teaches the next scan session will be repeated for the same foreign channel. Thus, the repeating the scan (probe request) on the same channel).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the request comprises a plurality of response request signals and the hub is configured to transmit a response request signal of the plurality of response request signals a plurality of times, as disclosed by Gupta with and apparatus of Taylor. The motivations for doing so would be to optimize network functionality. (see Gupta par. 0005)
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US20180124785 hereinafter Taylor) in view of Asterjadhi et al. (US20180124700 hereinafter Asterjadhi).
Regarding claim 15. Taylor teaches the apparatus for claim 2. Taylor further teaches the request comprised in the response request is a request for devices that receive and process the response request and transmit the response (figs. 15-16 and par. 0149, teaches the LFD may send a network discovery solicitation message over multiple channels of a wireless network to create a communication relationship. Moreover, par. 0158, teaches the FFD may receive a network discovery solicitation message from an LFD to create a communication relationship and the network discovery solicitation message may include a directed network discovery information element indicating a listening window. Furthermore, pars. 0162-0164, teaches the FFD may frequency hop during the listening window based on information that is provided by the LFD in the network discovery solicitation message and the FFD may send, during the listening window, the network discovery message. Furthermore, par. 0153, teaches the LFD receiving from multiple neighboring FFDs a network discovery message, thus it is obvious that any FFD receiving the network discovery solicitation message can use the information to send a network discovery message).
However, the apparatus of Taylor explicitly fails to disclose, transmitting the response at a maximum predefined power.
Asterjadhi disclosed apparatus, systems, and methods for transmitting, so Asterjadhi is analogous to Taylor. Furthermore, Asterjadhi teaches transmitting the response at a maximum predefined power (fig. 6 and par. 0064, teaches transmit the response message using the determined transmit power when the determined transmit power is equal to a maximum transmit power. Whereas, the language “determined transmit power is equal to a maximum transmit power” reads as a maximum predefined power within the context of par 0063, which teaches the maximum transmit power for the apparatus may be allowed to use may be known and/or preconfigured).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize transmitting the response at a maximum predefined power, as disclosed by Asterjadhi with the apparatus of Taylor. The motivations for doing so would be to improve efficiency. (see Asterjadhi par. 0062)
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor et al. (US20180124785 hereinafter Taylor) in view of Tom et al. (US20090325704 hereinafter Tom).
Regarding claim 16. Taylor teaches the apparatus for claim 1. Taylor further teaches a system that comprises a first hub, the first hub being or comprising the hub of claim 1 (fig. 15 and pars. 0148-0156, teaches a Limited Function Device (LFD), see above claim 1),
the system further comprising a second hub (fig. 2 and pars. 0057-0063, teaches Full Function Device 200 (FFD)),
wherein the second hub has a transceiver configured for wirelessly communicating … on a channel of the plurality of wireless communication channels (fig. 2 and pars. 0057-0063, teaches the FFD 200 may be configured to send or receive communications on multiple channels simultaneously via the transceiver(s) 204),
the second hub being configured so that the transceiver of the second hub can also receive and process at least part of the response request from the first hub (fig. 16 and pars. 0157-0164, teaches the FFD may receive a network discovery solicitation message from an LFD to request to create a communication relationship with the FFD as a parent. Furthermore, the FFD may generate a network discovery message which may include determining information for a channel information element, schedule information element, timing and type information element, seed information element, and so on for an operating context to be implemented by the LFD. Moreover, the FFD may frequency hop during the listening window based on the information that is provided by the LFD in the network discovery solicitation message. Therefore, in order to frequency hop during the listening window and generate a network discovery message which may include information for an operating context to be implemented by the LFD there had to be some processing of the response request from the first hub),
wherein, in response to receiving and processing the at least part of the response request (fig. 16 and pars. 0157-0166, teaches the FFD may receive a network discovery solicitation message which includes a directed network discovery information element indicating a listening window, a channel list, and schedule information. Moreover, the FFD may frequency hop during the listening window based on the generator function that is implemented by the LFD and/or any other information that is provided by the LFD in the network discovery solicitation message),
the second hub is configured to: during a response generating period, transmit a response on the channel to the first hub (fig. 16 and pars. 0157-0166, teaches the FFD may send, during the listening window, the network discovery message).
However, although Taylor suggest peripherals (fig. 1), the apparatus of Taylor explicitly fails to disclose, a second hub and a plurality of associated peripherals associated with the second hub, wherein the second hub has a transceiver configured for wirelessly communicating with the second hub’s associated peripherals on a channel of the plurality of wireless communication channels.
Tom disclosed apparatus, systems, and methods for peripherals, so Tom is analogous to Taylor. Furthermore, Tom teaches a second hub and a plurality of associated peripherals associated with the second hub (fig. 4 and pars. 0055-0066, teaches a media console 400 and various wireless peripherals that may be used in conjunction with the console. Whereas, the “media console 400” reads as a second hub within the context of this passage),
wherein the second hub has a transceiver configured for wirelessly communicating with the second hub’s associated peripherals on a channel of the plurality of wireless communication channels (fig. 4 and pars. 0055-0066, teaches specific data that may be transmitted over the wireless link may be of any type that is typically transmitted between a peripheral device and a game console. Moreover, a wireless link may comprise a single channel over which messages may be transmitted between the console and the peripheral or a wireless link between a console and peripheral may comprise more than one channel. Furthermore, fig 6 and pars. 0069-0071, teaches data may be transmitted over a plurality of wireless data channels 630 to wireless peripheral 640 via transceiver 610, and reallocate channels based on data parameters and/or quality. Whereas, the language “, a wireless link may comprise a single channel over which messages may be transmitted between the console and the peripheral” reads as wirelessly communicating with the second hub’s associated peripherals on a channel of the plurality of wireless communication channels due to having a plurality of associated peripherals thus would have a polarity of channels, and/or “reallocate channels based on data parameters and/or quality between the peripheral device and a game console” reads as wirelessly communicating with the second hub’s associated peripherals on a channel of the plurality of wireless communication channels),
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a second hub and a plurality of associated peripherals associated with the second hub, wherein the second hub has a transceiver configured for wirelessly communicating with the second hub’s associated peripherals on a channel of the plurality of wireless communication channels, as disclosed by Tom with and apparatus of Taylor. The motivations for doing so would be to improve processing. (see Tom par. 0020)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17 and 18 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.
Regarding claim 17. Examiner notes Taylor (fig. 2 and pars. 0057-0063, teaches Full Function Device 200 (FFD) and fig. 16 and pars. 0157-0164) teaches the second hub interacting with the first hub, but does not disclose in response to receiving and processing the at least part of the response request, control or otherwise request at least one or all of its associated peripherals to transmit a response on the channel to the first hub during the response generating period.
Regarding claim 18. Examiner notes Taylor (fig. 18 and pars. 0177-0179) teaches a third device, but does not disclose comprises a third hub and at least one further peripheral associated with the third hub… that the third hub can also receive and process the response request from the first hub, wherein in response to receiving and processing the response request the third hub is configured to: during the response generating period, transmit a response on the channel to the first hub.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY LAUREN RAIMONDO whose telephone number is (703)756-5578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am - 5:00pm 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, Michael Thier can be reached at 571-272-2832. 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