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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because lines, numbers, labels, symbols, are not sharp or have poor readability for figures 2-3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,856,455. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because elimination of an element and its function provides no patentable difference. Claims 1-20 are encompassed by claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,856,455. It is well settle that elimination of elements and their function is considered to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Karlson, 153 USPQ 184 (CCPA 1963).
Instant Application
Patent No. 11,856,455
A shelf label system, comprising:
one or more electronic shelf labels;
one or more base stations that communicate with the one or more electronic shelf labels; and
a server that communicates with the one or more base stations and is configured to:
obtain a current allocated frequency for a base station based on a current priority type of the base station, a current weight degree of the base station, and a current available frequency set; and
instruct the base station to transmit a corresponding docking task to an
electronic shelf label based on the
current allocated frequency.
A shelf label system, comprising:
one or more electronic shelf labels;
one or more base stations that communicate with the one or more electronic shelf labels; and
a server that communicates with the one or more base stations and is configured to:
obtain a current weight degree for each base station based on a frequency interval weight between base stations in a current connectivity structure of each base station; obtain a current priority type for each base station based on base stations corresponding to docking tasks in a current batch docking task list and priority types of the docking tasks;
obtain a current allocated frequency for each base station based on the current priority type, the current weight degree, the frequency interval weight and a current available frequency set; and
instruct each base station to transmit a corresponding docking task to an electronic shelf label based on the current allocated frequency and to release the current allocated frequency such that during issuance of a next-round batch docking task list, each base station is dynamically re-allocated with a frequency based on the current available frequency set.
The above claims mapping, as example, is just to show that the instant claim is within the scope of the allowed claim 1 of Patent No. 11,856,455.
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(s) 1-5, 13-17, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ROSSL (US 20240023147 A1) in view of TAO et al. (US 2022/0210671 A1), hereinafter TAO.
Regarding claim 1, ROSSL discloses a shelf label system, comprising:
one or more electronic shelf labels (a plurality of ESL, 100-199, 200-299, 300-399, 400-499, 500-599, and 600-699, see ¶ 0070 and figure 2);
one or more base stations that communicate with the one or more electronic shelf labels (the ESL access points 1-6, see ¶ 0069 and figure 2); and
a server that communicates with the one or more base stations and is configured (a date processing device or a server 8 connected to a plurality of ESL access points, see ¶ 0067 and figure 2), to:
obtain a current allocated frequency for a base station based on a current priority type of the base station, a current weight degree of the base station, and a current available frequency set (the server makes the radio channel assignment for each ESL access points 1-6, see ¶ 0084; the radio channel 80-90 assignment includes with the aid of access points determining the radio activity and commissioning of the system during installation, see ¶ 0071); and
instruct the base station to transmit a corresponding docking task to an electronic shelf label based on the current allocated frequency (eg. ESL access point 1 serves a subset of ESLs in group 10, see ¶ 0071 and figure 2).
ROSSL fails to explicitly disclose that obtain a current allocated frequency for a base station based on a current priority type of the base station, a current weight degree of the base station.
In the same field of endeavor, TAO discloses in an embodiment, the allocation module is configured to: calculate a quantity of neighbors of each intranet AP; perform weighted averaging based on a load of each intranet AP and the quantity of neighbors of each intranet AP, to obtain a priority of the intranet AP; and perform radio frequency resource allocation based on the information about the interference source and the priority of the intranet AP (see ¶ 0027, 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement TAO’s teaching the network taught by ROSSL to improve network overall through put by minimizing interference among the APs.
Regarding claim 2, ROSSL discloses the server is further configured to: instruct the base station to release the current allocated frequency and to dynamically re-allocate with a frequency based on the current available frequency set during issuance of a next-round batch docking task list (the allocated frequency channel to ESL access points 1-6 may be re-allocate with different channel for optimization, see figures 4-5 and ¶ 0087-0089).
Regarding claim 3, TAO discloses that obtain the current weight degree of the base station based on a frequency interval weight between base stations in a current connectivity structure of the base station (the allocating a radio frequency resource to an intranet AP in the global topology based on the information about the interference source includes: calculating a quantity of neighbors of each intranet AP; performing weighted averaging based on a load of each intranet AP and the quantity of neighbors of each intranet AP, to obtain a priority of the intranet AP; and performing radio frequency resource allocation based on the information about the interference source and the priority of the intranet AP. The APs are re-sorted based on loads and neighbor information of the APs, and radio frequency resource allocation is performed based on a sorting result, so that interference can be further reduced (see ¶ 0027).
Regarding claim 4, TAO discloses obtain the current priority type of the base station based on base stations corresponding to docking tasks in a current batch docking task list and priority types of the docking tasks (the allocating a radio frequency resource to an intranet AP in the global topology based on the information about the interference source includes: calculating a quantity of neighbors of each intranet AP; performing weighted averaging based on a load of each intranet AP and the quantity of neighbors of each intranet AP, to obtain a priority of the intranet AP; and performing radio frequency resource allocation based on the information about the interference source and the priority of the intranet AP. The APs are re-sorted based on loads and neighbor information of the APs, and radio frequency resource allocation is performed based on a sorting result, so that interference can be further reduced (see ¶ 0027).
Regarding claim 5, ROSSL discloses the server is further configured to: instruct the base station located in a store to transmit ranging signals to obtain ranging results; and obtain a current connectivity structure of the base station based on the ranging results (the radio channel activity data FAD transmitted by radio to the ESL access points 1-6 are then transmitted from the ESL access points 1-6 to the server 8 and stored there with a reference to the respective position of the relevant ESLs 100-699 to produce a digital three-dimensional map of the radio activities for each ESL radio channel, see ¶ 0083).
Regarding claim 13, ROSSL discloses a method for dynamic frequency allocation, comprising:
obtaining, by a server in a shelf label system, a current allocated frequency for a base station based on a current priority type of the base station, a current weight degree of the base station, and a current available frequency set (the server makes the radio channel assignment for each ESL access points 1-6, see ¶ 0084; the radio channel 80-90 assignment includes with the aid of access points determining the radio activity and commissioning of the system during installation, see ¶ 0071, it should be note the examiner interpreted “commissioning” of the system during installation includes assigned priority and weight of the access points),
wherein the shelf label system comprises one or more base stations, one or more electronic shelf labels, and the server, wherein the one or more base stations communicate with the one or more electronic shelf labels and the server (a date processing device or a server 8 connected to a plurality of ESL access points, see ¶ 0067 and figure 2); and
instructing, by the server, each base station to transmit a corresponding docking task to an electronic shelf label based on the current allocated frequency (eg. ESL access point 1 serves a subset of ESLs in group 10, see ¶ 0071 and figure 2).
ROSSL fails to explicitly disclose that obtain a current allocated frequency for a base station based on a current priority type of the base station, a current weight degree of the base station.
In the same field of endeavor, TAO discloses in an embodiment, the allocation module is configured to: calculate a quantity of neighbors of each intranet AP; perform weighted averaging based on a load of each intranet AP and the quantity of neighbors of each intranet AP, to obtain a priority of the intranet AP; and perform radio frequency resource allocation based on the information about the interference source and the priority of the intranet AP (see ¶ 0027, 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement TAO’s teaching the network taught by ROSSL to improve network overall through put by minimizing interference among the APs.
Regarding claim 14, ROSSL discloses the server is further configured to: instruct the base station to release the current allocated frequency and to dynamically re-allocate with a frequency based on the current available frequency set during issuance of a next-round batch docking task list (the allocated frequency channel to ESL access points 1-6 may be re-allocate with different channel for optimization, see figures 4-5 and ¶ 0087-0089).
Regarding claim 15, TAO discloses that obtain the current weight degree of the base station based on a frequency interval weight between base stations in a current connectivity structure of the base station (the allocating a radio frequency resource to an intranet AP in the global topology based on the information about the interference source includes: calculating a quantity of neighbors of each intranet AP; performing weighted averaging based on a load of each intranet AP and the quantity of neighbors of each intranet AP, to obtain a priority of the intranet AP; and performing radio frequency resource allocation based on the information about the interference source and the priority of the intranet AP. The APs are re-sorted based on loads and neighbor information of the APs, and radio frequency resource allocation is performed based on a sorting result, so that interference can be further reduced (see ¶ 0027).
Regarding claim 16, TAO discloses obtain the current priority type of the base station based on base stations corresponding to docking tasks in a current batch docking task list and priority types of the docking tasks (the allocating a radio frequency resource to an intranet AP in the global topology based on the information about the interference source includes: calculating a quantity of neighbors of each intranet AP; performing weighted averaging based on a load of each intranet AP and the quantity of neighbors of each intranet AP, to obtain a priority of the intranet AP; and performing radio frequency resource allocation based on the information about the interference source and the priority of the intranet AP. The APs are re-sorted based on loads and neighbor information of the APs, and radio frequency resource allocation is performed based on a sorting result, so that interference can be further reduced (see ¶ 0027).
Regarding claim 17, ROSSL discloses the server is further configured to: instruct the base station located in a store to transmit ranging signals to obtain ranging results; and obtain a current connectivity structure of the base station based on the ranging results (the radio channel activity data FAD transmitted by radio to the ESL access points 1-6 are then transmitted from the ESL access points 1-6 to the server 8 and stored there with a reference to the respective position of the relevant ESLs 100-699 to produce a digital three-dimensional map of the radio activities for each ESL radio channel, see ¶ 0083).
Regarding claim 20, ROSSL discloses a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a plurality of programs for execution by a server in a shelf label system (a date processing device or a server 8 connected to a plurality of ESL access points, see ¶ 0067 and figure 2), wherein the server has one or more processors, and the plurality of programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the server to perform acts comprising:
obtaining a current allocated frequency for a base station based on a current priority type of the base station, a current weight degree of the base station, and a current available frequency set (the server makes the radio channel assignment for each ESL access points 1-6, see ¶ 0084; the radio channel 80-90 assignment includes with the aid of access points determining the radio activity and commissioning of the system during installation, see ¶ 0071, it should be note the examiner interpreted “commissioning” of the system during installation includes assigned priority and weight of the access points); and
instructing the base station to transmit a corresponding docking task to an electronic shelf label based on the current allocated frequency (eg. ESL access point 1 serves a subset of ESLs in group 10, see ¶ 0071 and figure 2).
ROSSL fails to explicitly disclose that obtain a current allocated frequency for a base station based on a current priority type of the base station, a current weight degree of the base station.
In the same field of endeavor, TAO discloses in an embodiment, the allocation module is configured to: calculate a quantity of neighbors of each intranet AP; perform weighted averaging based on a load of each intranet AP and the quantity of neighbors of each intranet AP, to obtain a priority of the intranet AP; and perform radio frequency resource allocation based on the information about the interference source and the priority of the intranet AP (see ¶ 0027, 0048).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement TAO’s teaching the network taught by ROSSL to improve network overall through put by minimizing interference among the APs.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-12 and 18-19 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.
Claims 6 and 18 are considered allowable over the prior art of record since the prior art of record fails to show or fairly suggest: take a base station with a high priority and having a maximum current weight degree among the one or more base stations without frequency allocation, as a current first target base station; obtain a plurality of first frequency-allocated base stations connected to the current first target base station based on the current first target base station; and select a first target frequency as a current allocated frequency of the current first target base station from the current available frequency set based on a plurality of first allocated frequencies corresponding to the plurality of first frequency-allocated base stations, wherein a difference between the first target frequency and each first allocated frequency is greater than or equal to a corresponding frequency interval weight.
Regarding claims 7-9 are considered allowable claim since they depend on the allowable parent claim 6.
Regarding claim 19 is considered allowable claim since they depend on the allowable parent claim 18.
Claim 10 is considered allowable over the prior art of record since the prior art of record fails to show or fairly suggest: instruct the base station to scan each frequency point in a preset frequency set to obtain signal scanning power of the base station for each frequency point; and compare each signal scanning power with a preset threshold power, and form the current available frequency set using the frequency points corresponding to the signal scanning power less than the preset threshold power.
Claim 11 is considered allowable over the prior art of record since the prior art of record fails to show or fairly suggest: instruct the one or more base stations to transmit the ranging signals in turn; obtain the ranging results between each base station and other base stations based on intensity of feedback signals transmitted from the other base stations to each base station; and establish a current connectivity topological structure of the one or more base stations based on the ranging results among all the one or more base stations.
Regarding claim 12 is considered allowable claim since they depend on the allowable parent claim 11.
Conclusion
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
The following address mail to be delivered by the United States Postal Service (USPS) only:
Mail Stop _____________
Commissioner for Patents
P. O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
or faxed to:
(571) 273-8300, (for formal communications intended for entry)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Bob A. Phunkulh whose telephone number is (571) 272-3083. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday from 8:00 A.M. to 5:00 P.M. (first week of the bi-week) and Monday-Friday (for second week of the bi-week).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor CHARLES C. JIANG can be reach on (571) 270-7191.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/BOB A PHUNKULH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412