DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 19, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
RE claims 1, 11, and 20, Applicant presents the argument that Ryu and Xu “describe two fundamentally incompatible power management approaches” and further that “If Xu's PDS trigger scheme were applied to Ryu's non-AP MLD, then during the first power save mode the non-AP MLD's wireless transceiver would be powered off, and the non-AP MLD could not listen for beacon frames as Ryu requires. This would destroy Ryu's beacon-listening mechanism. Alternatively, if the wireless transceiver of Ryu's non-AP MLD remained powered on (as Ryu requires), then Xu's external trigger would be unnecessary because Ryu's existing TIM- based mechanism already transitions the non-AP MLD between sleep modes. In either case, the proposed combination fails to yield the claimed invention and lacks any articulated rationale.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant’s position with this combination is inconsistent with what is suggested by the teachings of Xu. Yes, the “first circuit” is “substantially powered down” in order to save power. However, the teachings of paragraphs 45-55 are rather clear. The first circuit may be woken at any time via a variety of methods via a second circuit, connected to the first. Paragraph 54 as originally cited is rather clearly appropriate for the limitation in question. It reads: “Optionally or additionally, the wireless device 110 may be controlled by another device (not shown) over a machine-to-machine (M2M) communication interface. The second circuit may include an M2M communication device such that a control signal or message from an external device based on wired or wireless communication channels via WIFI, Zigbee, RFID, Bluetooth, Mbus, etc., can be used to control the power-on switch and/or indicate an emergency event or a reporting event for sending an emergency message or a reporting message to the pre-configured emergency handling entity or intended reporting entity. Because such short-range wireless device consumes little power, the battery standby time can be improved.”.
Examiner’s position is that said combination would not yield the result Applicant’s allege nor does it require any breaking changes to the non-AP MLD of Xu. The teachings of Xu merely suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art that signals from associated, but physically separate, devices may be used via some wireless signal and protocol in order to change the sleep mode of a device which engages in periods of power saving. Xu effectively teaches an alternative trigger cause or mechanism for switching between the two power save modes. For this reason, this argument is unpersuasive and the amended claims are further rejected as set forth below.
Applicant’s further argue “The Examiner stated only that one of ordinary skill would combine Ryu with Xu "in order to provide for sleep mode change triggering via an external device." Office Action, page 5. Applicant respectfully disagrees. This conclusory statement does not recognize the particular technical benefit identified by the inventor of the present application, e.g., an external trigger based on a physical user interaction with a third device (such as a doorbell) can predictively shift the first device (such as a camera sensor) into a more responsive sleep mode in anticipation of an incoming communication request, thereby reducing the latency of the very first response. See Specification, paragraphs [0019]-[0022]. This anticipatory, predictive approach is what the inventor of the present application recognized and developed, and it is what is absent from both Ryu and Xu.”, and “Just to be clear, this feature is also not taught by Howarter, although the Examiner appears to use Howarter to reject the claim element "the first device is a camera sensor and the third device is a doorbell" as recited in original claim 9. Specifically, Howarter describes that "when the doorbell 308 is pushed or activated by an individual, the doorbell may instruct the front door camera to stream live data, record a video, or take a still image." Howarter, paragraph [0038]. Howarter does not disclose any sleep mode management for the camera, let alone a two-stage sleep mode scheme in which a physical interaction with a doorbell triggers a transition between two sleep modes having different beacon-checking intervals. Howarter's camera simply streams or records upon the doorbell push; it does not perform any anticipatory sleep mode transition. Accordingly, Howarter does not cure the deficiencies of Ryu and Xu.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees with this position as well for the same reasons set forth above with respect to bodily combination. Furthermore, Applicant’s assertion that the combination and conclusory statement “does not recognize the particular technical benefit identified by the inventor of the present application” is not persuasive because the motivation to combine need not based on the particular benefit asserted by Applicants where the combination of have provided a known or expected advantage. See further MPEP 2143.01, top paragraph, “A ‘motivation to combine may be found explicitly or implicitly in market forces; design incentives; the ‘interrelated teachings of multiple patents’; ‘any need or problem known in the field of endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent’; and the background knowledge, creativity, and common sense of the person of ordinary skill.’”.
RE claims 2-7, 9-10, 12-17 and 21-22, no additional, different arguments have been raised specifically directed to any of these claims. As such, the claims remain rejected for at least the reasons already stated above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 11-17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu et al. (US 2024/0422674, Ryu hereafter) and further in view of Xu (US 2022/0015033).
RE claims 1, 11 and 20, Ryu discloses a method, first device, non-transitory computer-readable storage medium; comprising: a processor; and a memory (Fig 2) storing instructions that, when executed by the processor, configure the first device to:
operate in a first sleep mode (Paragraphs 153-163 and 164-169 discloses a non-AP MLD, a STA, capable of moving between a first power save mode, a second power save mode and an active mode. Paragraphs 153 and 165, a STA moves from an active mode to a first power save mode.); check for Beacon signals broadcasted by a second device at a first periodic interval while operating in the first sleep mode (Paragraphs 153 and 165, the STA periodically wakes from a doze state to listen for a beacon and returns to the doze state if no beacon is detected); upon receiving a sleep mode change trigger, changing from the first sleep mode to a second sleep mode (Paragraph 167 discloses : “On receiving the TIM element in beacon frame 1821 indicating DL BUs for non-AP MLD 1811 and the DL BU(s) from AP MLD 1812, non-AP MLD 1811 may change the power management mode from the first power save mode to a second power save mode.”); continue to check for the Beacon signals broadcasted by the second device at a second periodic interval shorter than the first periodic interval while operating in the second sleep mode (Paragraph 167 further discloses “Further, non-AP MLD 1811 may start a timer 1825 (e.g., a second power save mode (PSM) timer) which value may be equal to one beacon interval. While in the second power save mode, STA1, STA2, and STA3 may wake from the doze state to listen for beacon frames on the enabled links at each target beacon transmission time (TBTT) on the enabled links while timer 1825 runs.” Paragraph 153 further discloses “during the second power save mode, the STAs of the non-AP MLD may wake to listen for a beacon frame more frequently than while in the first power same mode”); detect that there is a communication request in the Beacon signals while operating in the second sleep mode (Paragraph 168 discloses “Subsequently, AP3 of AP MLD 1812 having downlink buffered BU(s) may transmit a beacon frame 1841 comprising a TIM element indicating DL BU(s) for non-AP MLD 1811. Beacon frame 1841 may further comprise one or more broadcast target wake time (TWT) element indicating a restricted TWT service period (SP) and/or a TE TWT SP. STA3 operating in the second power save mode may wake at the TBTT and may receive beacon frame 1841.”); and upon detecting that there is a communication request in the Beacon signals, establish a communication session corresponding to the communication request (Paragraphs 166-168, in either power save mode if a beacon indicates DL BU(s), the STA performs reception of the downlink data) .
Ryu does not explicitly disclose receiving a sleep mode changing trigger from a third device while operating in the first sleep mode, wherein the third device is a physical component associated with the first device, the third device being separated from the second device, and wherein the sleep mode changing trigger is generated based on a physical user interaction with the third device
However, Xu teaches receiving a sleep mode changing trigger from a third device while operating in the first sleep mode, wherein the third device is a physical component associated with the first device, the third device being separated from the second device, and wherein the sleep mode changing trigger is generated based on a physical user interaction with the third device (Paragraph 45 teaches a wireless device operating in “power down standby (PDS)” mode, a power savings mode. Paragraphs 45-55 teaches a variety of methods for waking the wireless device from the PDS mode. Paragraph 54 teaches the trigger may be via an another device by receiving wireless signal from said another device though an interface such as M2M, WiFi, Zigbee, RFID, Bluetooth, Mbus, etc.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method, device medium of Ryu with the teachings of Xu in order to provide for sleep mode change triggering via an external device.
RE claims 2 and 12, Ryu in view of Xu discloses the method of claim 1 and the first device of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Ryu further discloses changing from the second sleep mode to a work mode during the communication session (Paragraphs 166-168, in either power save mode if a beacon indicates DL BU(s), the STA performs reception of the downlink data).
RE claims 3 and 13, Ryu in view of Xu discloses the method of claim 1 and the first device of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Ryu further discloses skipping the checking for at least one of the Beacon signals during each first periodic interval while operating in the first sleep mode (Paragraph 153 further discloses “during the second power save mode, the STAs of the non-AP MLD may wake to listen for a beacon frame more frequently than while in the first power same mode”).
RE claims 4 and 14, Ryu in view of Xu discloses the method of claim 1 and the first device of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Ryu further discloses checking for every Beacon signal during each second periodic interval while operating in the second sleep mode (Paragraph 153 further discloses “during the second power save mode, the STAs of the non-AP MLD may wake to listen for a beacon frame more frequently than while in the first power same mode”).
RE claims 5 and 15, Ryu in view of Xu discloses the method of claim 1 and the first device of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Ryu further discloses wherein the detecting that there is a communication request in the Beacon signals comprises: identifying a Traffic Indication Map (TIM) element in the Beacon signals (Paragraph 167 discloses : “On receiving the TIM element in beacon frame 1821 indicating DL BUs for non-AP MLD 1811 and the DL BU(s) from AP MLD 1812, non-AP MLD 1811 may change the power management mode from the first power save mode to a second power save mode.”); extracting a bitmap control field value and a partial virtual bitmap value from the TIM element; and determining that there is a communication request based on the bitmap control field value and the partial virtual bitmap value (Paragraph 131 further discloses “The STA may determine that a BU is buffered for the STA by receiving and interpreting the TIM element. The TIM element may include a traffic indication partial virtual bitmap maintained by the AP. The STA operating in PS mode may periodically listen for beacon frames, as determined by a listen interval parameter which may be indicated in association request and association response frames.” Paragraph 134 further discloses “As shown in FIG. 13, a TIM element may include bitmap control field(s) and partial virtual bitmap field(s).”)
RE claims 6 and 16, Ryu in view of Xu discloses the method of claim 1 and the first device of claim 11 as set forth above. Note that Ryu further discloses determining that the communication session has ended; and upon determining that the communication session has ended, reoperating in the first sleep mode (Paragraph 165 discloses the STAs change from an active mode to the first power save mode. In context this occurs in the absence of downlink data. Paragraphs 156-160 discloses that moving down from an active mode or the second power save mode to the first power save mode may be timer based. In the passages already cited above, these timers may be started or restarted upon detection of a beacon. Therefore, a timer expiring indicates the end of a given “communication session” and subsequent triggers a move to a lower power state.)
RE claims 7 and 17, Ryu in view of Xu discloses the method of claim 6 and the first device of claim 16 as set forth above. Note that Ryu further discloses wherein the detecting that the communication session has ended comprises: detecting that there has been no communication request in the Beacon signals for a predetermined time period (Paragraph 165 discloses the STAs change from an active mode to the first power save mode. In context this occurs in the absence of downlink data. Paragraphs 156-160 discloses that moving down from an active mode or the second power save mode to the first power save mode may be timer based. In the passages already cited above, these timers may be started or restarted upon detection of a beacon. Therefore, a timer expiring indicates the end of a given “communication session” and subsequent triggers a move to a lower power state.)
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Xu and further in view of Howarter et al. (US 2008/0129498, Howarter hereafter).
RE claims 9 and 19, Ryu in view of Xu discloses the method of claim 1 and the first device of claim 11 as set forth above. Ryun in view of Xu does not explicitly disclose wherein the first device is a camera sensor, the second device is an Access Point and the third device is a doorbell, wherein: when a user interacts with the doorbell, the camera sensor enters the second sleep mode such that the camera sensor is ready to provide a real- time video upon receiving the communication request in the Beacon signals broadcasted by the second device.
However, Howarter teaches wherein the first device is a camera sensor and the third device is a doorbell, wherein: when a user interacts with the doorbell, the camera sensor enters the second sleep mode such that the camera sensor is ready to provide a real-time video upon receiving the communication request in the Beacon signals broadcasted by the second device (Paragraph 38 teaches a system comprised of a doorbell and camera connected via a communication network such as WiFi. “The doorbell 308 communicates with the front door camera 304 and other wireless devices, such as the wireless router 110 of FIG. 1 for sending and receiving data. When the doorbell 308 is pushed or activated by an individual, the doorbell may instruct the front door camera to stream live data, record a video, or take a still image of the person at the door 306 to send to the cell phone 312 or the set top box 103 of FIG. 1” Paragraphs 44-45 further teaches that a user may be notified on a cell phone of the doorbell being pressed and given the ability to view the real-time video stream from the camera. Paragraph 45: “The security content sent from the front door camera 304 may be video clips, still images, or streaming data, as requested by the user.” The wireless router is analogous to the claimed access point as one of ordinary skill would recognize that the wireless router is typically the primary device in a home network that performs delivery of packets/data between wireless devices themselves on the network as well as between them and the provider network.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and device of Ryu in view of Xu with the teachings of Howarter since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Xu and further in view of Aust et al. (US 2020/0125355).
RE claim 10, Ryu in view of Xu discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Ryu in view of Xu does not explicitly disclose wherein the established communication session includes an over-the-air (OTA) update.
However, Aust teaches wherein the established communication session includes an over-the-air (OTA) update (Figure 2 and 3 teach an OTA update system. Server device triggers a wakeup request that is forwarded wirelessly to a communication unit and associated ECU. Once wake up is complete, the server transmits an update to be applied to the ECU).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and device of Ryu in view of Xu with the teachings of Aust in order to remotely update the software/firmware of a wireless device.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ryu in view of Xu and further in view of Kashef et al. (US 11,197,581, Kashef hereafter).
RE claim 22, Ryu in view of Xu discloses the method of claim 1 as set forth above. Ryu in view of Xu does not explicitly disclose wherein the sleep mode changing trigger is received by the first device via a communication path that is independent of the Beacon signals broadcasted by the second device.
However, Kashef teaches wherein the sleep mode changing trigger is received by the first device via a communication path that is independent of the Beacon signals broadcasted by the second device (Column 13 line 54 through column 14 line 11, Kashef teaches “each of first DDM node 222, second DDM node 226, and third DDM node 228 may be configured to initiate or transfer control commands to other DDM nodes. The transport control protocol used by first DDM node 222, second DDM node 226, and third DDM node 228 may be secure or unsecured and may or pray not require acknowledgments depending on the control commands. The transport control protocol and commands may be communicated between first DDM node 222, second DDM node 226, and third DDM node 228 via AP 204 or via direct wireless links 232, 236, and 238, Examples of commands that may be initiated or transferred include: Get Data, Set Data, Modify Data, Acknowledgement, Call Back, Event Trigger, Tmer Trigger, File Transfer (upload or download), Sleep, and Wakeup, to name a few.” Further see figures 3 and 4.)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method and device of Ryu in view of Xu with the teachings of Kashef in order to provide for direct communication and control of devices on the same network without necessarily routing via the AP thereby reducing latency.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 21 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but may be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
RE claim 21, prior arts do not explicitly disclose, teach or suggest, wherein the changing from the first sleep mode to the second sleep mode occurs before the communication request is buffered at the second device, such that the first device operates in the second sleep mode when the communication request is subsequently buffered at the second device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/James P Duffy/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights