DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
RCE filed 2/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 13, 18, 24, 25, and 27 have been amended.
Claim 19 has been cancelled. Claims 8-11, 14, 15, and 20 previously cancelled.
Claim 28 has been newly added.
Claims 1-7, 12, 13, 16-18, and 21-28 remain pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 16-18, 21-23, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Krcmaricic-Barackov et al. (US20200266989A1), hereafter Barackov.
Regarding claims 1 and 18,
Barackov (Title: Ad-Hoc Network) discloses a method of a first router device (Fig. 3, paragraph 34-36; router-eligible End Devices in a Thread network defined under IEEE 802.15.4) comprising transceiver circuitry (Fig. 5, Transmitter 308/Receiver 309/Antenna 305) and processing circuitry (Fig. 5, microcontroller 301; paragraph 121) operatively coupled to the transceiver circuitry and configured to cause the transceiver circuitry of the first router device to transmit an indication (paragraph 295; transmission/reception scheduling segments assigned by cluster master to commissioned nodes) of a first plurality of time slots and a second plurality of time slots to a second router device (Fig. 3, commissioned nodes including REED Thread Device) or an end device (Fig. 3, commissioned nodes including Regular Thread Device) that is communicatively coupled to the first router device via a wireless Thread network (Fig. 3; paragraph 34-36; Thread Network/IEEE 802.15.4) to cause at least a portion of the transceiver to enter a low power state during one or more times outside of the first plurality of time slots and the second plurality of time slots (paragraph 298; excluding reception slots when node does not have to listen/can power off antenna and transceiver), cause the transceiver circuitry to exit the low power state to receive wireless signals during the first plurality of time slots (paragraph 297 exclusive reception slots when node must listen for messages), and cause the transceiver circuitry to exit the low power state to transmit wireless signals during the second plurality of time slots (paragraph 296; exclusive transmission slot when node transmits without interfering signals from other nodes).
Regarding claim 13,
Barackov discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium comprising instructions (paragraph 40-41, 119-126) that, when executed by processing circuitry (Fig. 5, microcontroller 301; paragraph 121) of a first router device (Fig. 3, paragraph 34-36; router-eligible End Devices in a Thread network defined under IEEE 802.15.4) cause the processing circuitry to cause transceiver circuitry (Fig. 5, Transmitter 308/Receiver 309/Antenna 305) of the first router device to transmit an indication (paragraph 295; transmission/reception scheduling segments assigned by cluster master to commissioned nodes) of a first plurality of time slots and a second plurality of time slots to a second router device (Fig. 3, commissioned nodes including REED Thread Device) or an end device (Fig. 3, commissioned nodes including Regular Thread Device) that is communicatively coupled to the first router device via a wireless Thread network (Fig. 3; paragraph 34-36; Thread Network/IEEE 802.15.4) to cause at least a portion of the transceiver to enter a low power state during one or more times outside of the first plurality of time slots and the second plurality of time slots (paragraph 298; excluding reception slots when node does not have to listen/can power off antenna and transceiver), cause the transceiver circuitry to exit the low power state to receive wireless signals during the first plurality of time slots (paragraph 297; exclusive reception slots when node must listen for messages), and cause the transceiver circuitry to exit the low power state to transmit wireless signals during the second plurality of time slots (paragraph 296; exclusive transmission slot to transmit without interfering signals from other nodes).
Regarding claim 2,
Barackov discloses the processing circuitry configured to cause the transceiver circuitry to transmit a second indication of a third plurality of time slots and a fourth plurality of time slots to an electronic device (Fig. 3; further/additional REED and Regular Thread Devices) that is communicatively coupled to the first electronic device via the wireless network, wherein the third plurality of time slots is associated with the transceiver receiving wireless signals from the electronic device via the wireless Thread network and the fourth plurality of times slots is associated with the transceiver transmitting wireless signals to the electronic device via the wireless Thread network (Fig. 3; paragraphs 295-300; each commissioned node is assigned transmission/reception scheduling segments).
Regarding claim 4,
Barackov discloses the first plurality of time slots and the third plurality of time slots are different (Abstract; each node in different states/distance to time references).
Regarding claim 6,
Barackov discloses at least the portion of the transceiver circuitry to enter the low power state during one or more additional times outside of the first plurality of time slots and the third plurality of time slots (paragraph 298; excluding reception slots when node does not have to listen/can power off antenna and transceiver) and cause the transceiver to exit the low power state to receive wireless signals during the first plurality of time slots or the third plurality of time slots (paragraph 297; exclusive reception slots when node must listen for messages).
Regarding claim 7,
Barackov discloses the processing circuitry is configured to determine the first plurality of time slots and the second plurality of time slots based at least in part on network traffic on a second wireless network to which the first electronic device is communicatively coupled (paragraph 295-300; listen/sync on to the cluster node of the Thread Network).
Regarding claims 12, 16, 17, 21, and 22,
Barackov discloses the second router and/or end device comprises a sleepy end device (Fig. 3, Regular Thread Device)) or second router device (Fig. 3, REED Thread Device) of the wireless Thread network comprising WiFi, Bluetooth, or IEEE 802.11/802.15.4 networks (paragraph 34-36).
Regarding claim 23,
Barackov does not expressly disclose determining the first plurality of time slots and the second plurality of time slots by performing coordinated sampled listening (paragraph 295; each commissioned node calculates their distance to time references to indicate the quality of their own clock in relation to network time).
Regarding claim 28,
Barackov discloses to determine the first and second plurality of time slots based on availability of the transceiver circuitry of the first router device and second router device/end device (paragraph 51, 108, 171, 214, 293; metadata of each node such as capabilities/characteristics including resources available on the node with its address and other identifying parameters).
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 Barackov in view of Lee et al. (US20240414737A1), hereafter Lee.
Regarding claim 3,
Barackov does not expressly disclose a first time slot of the first plurality of time slots overlaps with a second time slot of the third plurality of time slots.
Lee discloses analogous art (paragraph 198; 802.15.4) including a first time slot of the first plurality of time slots overlaps with a second time slot of the third plurality of time slots (Fig. 11-13; paragraphs 153-156; RX slot/resource pool overlapping with TX slot/resource pool).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Barackov by providing a first time slot of the first plurality of time slots overlaps with a second time slot of the third plurality of time slots, as shown by Lee, thereby enabling efficient sidelink communication in V2X networks.
Claims 5, 24, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barackov in view of Hanley et al. (US20180132182A1), hereafter Hanley.
Regarding claim 5,
Barackov does not expressly show a multi-device wake-up command to the second electronic device and the third electronic device and after transmitting the multi-device wake-up command, cause the transceiver to transmit the indication and the second indication.
Hanley discloses analogous art (Title: Optimization of Broadcast Messaging for Low-Energy Devices Communicating on a Time-Slotted Channel Hopping Network) including a routers and end devices (paragraph 2, 18; parent devices including routers defined by IEEE 802.15.4; Fig. 1-3; paragraph 3; Low-Energy Devices 104) in a low-energy network communicating over time slots (Fig. 4, time slots 411-415, 421-425 according to configured hopping pattern; Abstract; Fig. 5-7; paragraphs 3-6, 18-20, 38-51; sleep state during wake/sleep cycle) and further includes a multi-device wake-up command to the second electronic device and the third electronic device and after transmitting the multi-device wake-up command, cause the transceiver to transmit the indication and the second indication (Fig. 8, steps 810-830; paragraphs 4-6, 58-61; multi-device broadcast timeslot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Barackov by providing a multi-device wake-up command to the second electronic device and the third electronic device and after transmitting the multi-device wake-up command, cause the transceiver to transmit the indication and the second indication, as shown by Hanley, thereby optimizing transmissions between parent devices and connected LE devices operating on a time-slotted channel hopping networks such as 802.15.4 Thread networks.
Regarding claim 24,
Barackov does not expressly disclose the second router device or an end device is configured to operate in a sleep mode and wake up to poll the first router device.
Hanley discloses analogous art (Title: Optimization of Broadcast Messaging for Low-Energy Devices Communicating on a Time-Slotted Channel Hopping Network) including a routers and end devices (paragraph 2, 18; parent devices including routers defined by IEEE 802.15.4; Fig. 1-3; paragraph 3; Low-Energy Devices 104) in a low-energy network communicating over time slots (Fig. 4, time slots 411-415, 421-425 according to configured hopping pattern; Abstract; Fig. 5-7; paragraphs 3-6, 18-20, 38-51; sleep state during wake/sleep cycle) and further shows the second router device or an end device is configured to operate in a sleep mode and wake up to poll the first router device (Abstract; Fig. 9, step 910; paragraph 63; LE endpoint sends check-in message upon exiting sleep state).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Barackov by configuring the second router device or an end device is configured to operate in a sleep mode and wake up to poll the first router device, as shown by Hanley, thereby optimizing transmissions between parent devices and connected LE devices operating on a time-slotted channel hopping networks such as 802.15.4 Thread networks.
Regarding claim 25,
Barackov does not expressly show causing the transceiver circuitry of the first router device to transmit a wake-up signal to the second router device or the end device, wherein the wake-up signal is configured to cause the second router device or the end device to exit the low power state.
Hanley discloses analogous art (Title: Optimization of Broadcast Messaging for Low-Energy Devices Communicating on a Time-Slotted Channel Hopping Network) including a routers and end devices (paragraph 2, 18; parent devices including routers defined by IEEE 802.15.4; Fig. 1-3; paragraph 3; Low-Energy Devices 104) in a low-energy network communicating over time slots (Fig. 4, time slots 411-415, 421-425 according to configured hopping pattern; Abstract; Fig. 5-7; paragraphs 3-6, 18-20, 38-51; sleep state during wake/sleep cycle) and further causing the transceiver circuitry of the first router device to transmit a wake-up signal to the second router device or the end device to cause the second router device or the end device to exit the low power state (Abstract; Fig. 9, step 920; paragraph 64; acknowledgement message to check-in identifying broadcast timeslot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Barackov by causing the transceiver circuitry of the first router device to transmit a wake-up signal to the second router device or the end device to cause the second router device or the end device to exit the low power state, as shown by Hanley, thereby optimizing transmissions between parent devices and connected LE devices operating on a time-slotted channel hopping networks such as 802.15.4 Thread networks.
Regarding claim 27,
Barackov fails to expressly disclose the first router device is configured to operate with the transceiver on, maintain IPv6 address mappings, and subscribe to an all-routers multicast address.
Hanley discloses analogous art (Title: Optimization of Broadcast Messaging for Low-Energy Devices Communicating on a Time-Slotted Channel Hopping Network) including a routers and end devices (paragraph 2, 18; parent devices including routers defined by IEEE 802.15.4; Fig. 1-3; paragraph 3; Low-Energy Devices 104) in a low-energy network communicating over time slots (Fig. 4, time slots 411-415, 421-425 according to configured hopping pattern; Abstract; Fig. 5-7; paragraphs 3-6, 18-20, 38-51; sleep state during wake/sleep cycle) and further discloses the first router device is configured to operate with the transceiver on (i.e. wake), maintain IPv6 address mappings (paragraph 21, 53; IP addressing), and subscribe to an all-routers multicast address (paragraph 56; multicast addressing).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Barackov by configuring the first router device is configured to operate with the transceiver on, maintain IPv6 address mappings, and subscribe to an all-routers multicast address, as shown by Hanley, thereby optimizing transmissions between parent devices and connected LE devices operating on a time-slotted channel hopping networks such as 802.15.4 Thread networks.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barackov in view of Dash et al. (USP 11265888B2), hereafter Dash.
Regarding claim 26,
Barackov does not expressly disclose determining the first plurality of time slots and the second plurality of time slots based on current radio conditions.
Dash discloses analogous art (Title; Col. 2, lines 40-50; 802.15.4/Thread networks) including determining time slots based on current radio conditions (Col. 5-6, lines 55-8; slot determination based on channel quality/interference information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Barackov by determining the time slots based on current radio conditions, as shown by Dash, thereby enabling time slot allocation based on current channel quality and interference information of the network.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the pending claims, as amended, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection relies on the Barackov reference as the primary reference, including additionally cited disclosures, for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights