DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is responsive to the claims filed on: 01/02/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending for Examination.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statements
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on: 03/18/2024 is determined to be compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, this IDS is being considered by the Examiner.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
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 1-5, 7-8, 11-15, and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US Patent No. 10,873,854 B2, Lee et al. (hereinafter “Lee”) in view of US PG Pub. 2022/0150831 A1, Di Marco et al. (hereinafter “Di Marco”).
With Respect to Claim 1, Lee teaches:
A Bluetooth low energy mesh network system (BLE mesh network 100 of Fig. 1, including various BLE devices), comprising:
a transmission controller circuit configured to determine whether an advertising packet comprises a message associated with a Bluetooth low energy mesh network (col. 5, ln. 57 to col. 6, ln. 39, col. 7, lines 40-65, col. 9, ln. 37 to col. 10, ln. 16, col. 11, lines 54-58, col. 12, lines 1-23, col. 14, lines 28-55, and col. 16, lines 4-7; and BLE Device 120 of Fig. 1 w/BLE Controller 30 of Fig 3(b) and Fig. 18(a), block S16010 of Fig. 16, and BLE Mesh network of Fig. 19 —a BLE device, i.e., a mobile/peripheral device as depicted in Figs. 1 and 18(a), can receive a transmitted advertising packet at its BLE Controller, i.e., BLE Controller 30 of Fig 3(b), which can comprise an advertisement packet message associated with the BT mesh network —the message is interpreted to comprise packet/PDU data type information, as depicted in Table 1, indicating a type of BLE communication, i.e., one of an unconnectable undirected advertising event: ADV_DIRECT_IND, a connectable directed advertising event: ADV_DIRECT_IND, etc.) and
a host controller circuit configured to be woke up from a sleep mode in response to a report from the transmission controller circuit when the transmission controller circuit determines that the advertising packet comprises the message, in order to transmit the message to another communications layer (col. 9, ln. 37 to col. 10, ln. 47, col. 13, lines 6-26, col. 14, lines 16-52, col. 19, lines 1-7, col. 21, ln. 9 to col. 22, ln. 34; and Host 40 and HCI 36 of Fig. 3(b), Wake-up message of Figs. 8-9, Step S10050/S11020/S12010 of Figs. 10-12, Op Codes/Activate of Fig. 15 (b), Steps 116010, 16030/16030 of Fig. 16, and client Application control of Fig. 19 —a BLE device’s Host controller, i.e., Host 40 of Fig. 3(b), can receive a report corresponding to an advertised packet message from the BLE controller, i.e., Controller 30 via the HCI interface 36 —the report may include an indication/command, i.e., an Op Code Value, to activate a device component(s)/transport element(s), in order to wake-up from a sleep state/mode).
However, Lee does not explicitly teach:
the host controller transporting the message to an application layer.
Di Marco does teach:
a host controller transporting a message to an application layer (paras. [0010]-[0012], [0017], [0102]-[0103], and [0107]-[0108]; Application layer of Fig. 2, and upper layers 1472 of Mesh protocol Stack 1470, and Applications 1460 of Fig. 14 —a received advertisement message(s) may have collected data/control commands for an application layer, which can be communicated with via a host to facilitate a remote source of the advertisement communicating messaging for one or more BLE device applications).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee’s advertisement message transmission waking up a host controller circuit, with the host controller sending the message an application layer, as taught by Di Marco.
The motivation for doing so would have been to further communicate a received advertisement message to a receiver BLE device’s application layer for processing related to a particular application, as recognized by Di Marco (paras. [0010]-[0012], [0017], [0102]-[0103], and [0107]-[0108]; Application layer of Fig. 2, and 1472 of Mesh Stack 1470, and Applications 1460 of Fig. 14).
With respect to claim 2, Lee in view of Di Marco teaches:
The Bluetooth low energy mesh network system of claim 1, wherein the transmission controller circuit is configured to determine whether a link layer packet header of the advertising packet indicates a non-connectable undirected advertisement (Lee: col. 9, lines 51-64, col. 11, lines 27-33 and lines 53-58, col. 14, lines 17-50; Controller 30 w/link layer 34 of Fig. 3(b), and Table 1 —a BLE Controller can determine if an advertised packet/PDU header comprises a type indication relating to a specific event type, such as an unconnectable undirected advertisement event, a.k.a., ADV_NONCONN_IND, as depicted in Table 1 under LL header type: 0010), and if the link layer packet header indicates the non-connectable undirected advertisement, the transmission controller circuit is further configured to determine whether the advertising packet comprises the message according to a data type of an advertising data in the advertising packet (Lee: col. 9, lines 51-64, col. 11, lines 27-33 and lines 53-58, col. 24, ln. 39 to col. 24, ln. 50, and col. 26, lines 5-21; Controller 30 w/link layer 34 of Fig. 3(b), Fig. 15(b), and Tables 2-4 —upon determining a header type of 0010 for ADV-NONCONN_IND in a broadcasted advertisement, the LL can also determine whether a message/command data exists indicating a device type/power state/Op code, associated with the advertising data type, as depicted in Tables 2-4 —the Examiner notes that the conditional claim term “if” may be satisfied by a controller determining no corresponding messaging exists).
With respect to claim 3 Lee in view of Di Marco teaches:
The Bluetooth low energy mesh network system of claim 2, wherein if the data type indicates a mesh network data or a mesh network beacon, the transmission controller circuit determines that the advertising packet comprises the message (Lee: col. 15, lines 22-44, col. 24, ln. 39 to col. 24, ln. 50, and col. 26, lines 5-21; and BLE Mesh system of Figs. 1 and 19 —a data type indication of an advertising packet can also indicate a device type, UUID, etc., which may be interpreted to indicate mesh network data —the Examiner notes that a beacon ID can be equivalent to a UUID —the term “or” only requires Examination on-the-merits of a single, claimed alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 4, Lee in view of Di Marco teaches the Bluetooth low energy mesh network system of claim 1.
However, Lee does not explicitly teach:
wherein if the transmission controller circuit determines that the advertising packet comprises the message, the transmission controller circuit is further configured to wake up the host controller circuit through a host controller interface, such that the host controller circuit transmits the message to the application layer.
Di Marco does teach:
wherein when a transmission controller circuit determines an advertising packet comprises a message, a transmission controller circuit is configured to wake up the host controller circuit through a host controller interface, such that the host controller circuit transmits the message to the application layer (paras. [0010]-[0012], [0017], [0102]-[0103], and [0107]-[0108]; Application layer of Fig. 2, and upper layers 1472 of Mesh protocol Stack 1470, and Applications 1460 of Fig. 14 —a received advertisement message(s) may have collected data/control commands for an application layer, which can be communicated with via a host to facilitate a remote source of the advertisement communicating messaging for one or more BLE device applications —in this regard, a BLE controller receiving the message can wake the host to convey the message data to application layer).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee’s advertisement message transmission waking up a host controller circuit, with the host controller sending the message an application layer, as taught by Di Marco.
The motivation for doing so would have been to further communicate a received advertisement message to a receiver BLE device’s application layer for processing related to a particular application, as recognized by Di Marco (paras. [0010]-[0012], [0017], [0102]-[0103], and [0107]-[0108]; Application layer of Fig. 2, and 1472 of Mesh Stack 1470, and Applications 1460 of Fig. 14).
With respect to claim 5, Lee in view of Di Marco teaches the Bluetooth low energy mesh network system of claim 1
However, Lee does not explicitly teach:
wherein if the transmission controller circuit determines that the advertising packet comprises the message, the transmission controller circuit is further configured to determine whether to relay the message to another device.
Di Marco does teach:
wherein when a transmission controller circuit determines that an advertising packet comprises a message, the transmission controller circuit is configured to determine whether to relay the message to another device (paras. [0006], [0016], [0018], [0073]-[0078], and [0087]-[0088]; and Controller 1094 of Figs. 10-11 —a BLE controller of a mesh network can receive a wake-up signal, i.e., in response to a polling message, from another BT device, and then determine whether it is the intended recipient of received broadcast message(s), whether it should relay the message(s) to another node i.e., via forwarding using one or more advertisement channel(s), and/or whether it has already received the message(s), and should discard it/them).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee’s advertisement message transmission waking up a host controller circuit, with the host controller sending the message an application layer, as taught by Di Marco.
The motivation for doing so would have been to further communicate a received advertisement message to a receiver BLE device’s application layer for processing related to a particular application, as recognized by Di Marco (paras. [0010]-[0012], [0017], [0102]-[0103], and [0107]-[0108]; Application layer of Fig. 2, and 1472 of Mesh Stack 1470, and Applications 1460 of Fig. 14).
With respect to claim 7, Lee in view of Di Marco teaches the Bluetooth low energy mesh network system of claim 1.
However, Lee does not explicitly teach:
wherein if the transmission controller circuit determines that the advertising packet comprises the message, the transmission controller circuit is further configured to wake up the host controller circuit through a host controller interface, and the host controller circuit is further configured to determine whether the message is to be processed by the application layer, in order to transmit the message to the application layer.
Di Marco does teach:
when a transmission controller circuit determines that the advertising packet comprises a message, the transmission controller circuit is configured to wake up the host controller circuit through a host controller interface, and determine whether the message is to be processed by the application layer, in order to transmit the message to the application layer (paras. [0006], [0018], [0073]-[0078], and [0087]-[0088]; Controller 1094 and Host 1096 of Figs. 10-11 —when a BLE controller of a mesh network determines it is an intended recipient of received advertisement/broadcast message(s), it can wake its host controller to forward the message to its application layer for processing.
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee’s advertisement message transmission waking up a host controller circuit, with the host controller sending the message an application layer, as taught by Di Marco.
The motivation for doing so would have been to further communicate a received advertisement message to a receiver BLE device’s application layer for processing related to a particular application, as recognized by Di Marco (paras. [0010]-[0012], [0017], [0102]-[0103], and [0107]-[0108]; Application layer of Fig. 2, and 1472 of Mesh Stack 1470, and Applications 1460 of Fig. 14).
With respect to claim 8, Lee in view of Di Marco teaches the Bluetooth low energy mesh network system of claim 1.
However, Lee does not explicitly teach:
wherein if the transmission controller circuit determines that the advertising packet comprises the message, the transmission controller circuit is further configured to wake up the host controller circuit through a host controller interface, and the host controller circuit is further configured to determine whether to relay the message to another device.
Di Marco does teach:
wherein when a transmission controller circuit determines that the advertising packet comprises the message, the transmission controller circuit is configured to wake up the host controller circuit through a host controller interface, and the host controller circuit is further configured to determine whether to relay the message to another device (paras. [0006], [0018], [0073]-[0078], and [0087]-[0088]; Controller 1094 and Host 1096 of Figs. 10-11 —when a BLE controller of a mesh network determines it is an intended recipient of received advertisement/broadcast message(s), it can wake its host controller to forward the message to its application layer for processing.
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee’s advertisement message transmission waking up a host controller circuit, with the host controller sending the message an application layer, as taught by Di Marco.
The motivation for doing so would have been to further communicate a received advertisement message to a receiver BLE device’s application layer for processing related to a particular application, as recognized by Di Marco (paras. [0010]-[0012], [0017], [0102]-[0103], and [0107]-[0108]; Application layer of Fig. 2, and 1472 of Mesh Stack 1470, and Applications 1460 of Fig. 14).
With respect to claim 11, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 11 is directed to a method claim type. As such, claim 11 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee in view of Di Marco, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 12, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 2, except claim 12 is directed to a method claim type. As such, claim 12 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee in view of Di Marco, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 2.
With respect to claim 13, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 3, except claim 13 is directed to a method claim type. As such, claim 13 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee in view of Di Marco, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 3.
With respect to claim 14, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 4, except claim 14 is directed to a method claim type. As such, claim 14 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee in view of Di Marco, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 4.
With respect to claim 15, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 5, except claim 15 is directed to a method claim type. As such, claim 15 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee in view of Di Marco, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 5.
With respect to claim 17, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 7, except claim 17 is directed to a method claim type. As such, claim 17 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee in view of Di Marco, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 7.
With respect to claim 18, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 8, except claim 18 is directed to a method claim type. As such, claim 18 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee in view of Di Marco, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 8.
Claims 6 and 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Di Marco, in further view of US PG Pub. 2019/0075440 A1, Malovany et al. (hereinafter “Malovany”).
With respect to claim 6, Lee in view of Di Marco teaches the Bluetooth low energy mesh network system of claim 5
However, Lee in view of Di Marco does not teach:
wherein if the transmission controller circuit determines to relay the message to the another device, the transmission controller circuit is configured to relay the message to the another device without waking up the host controller circuit.
Malovany does teach:
wherein when a transmission controller circuit determines to relay the message to the another device, the transmission controller circuit is configured to relay the message to the another device without waking up a host controller circuit (paras. [0008], [0010], [0022], and [0024]; BT device 302 of Fig. 3; and block 203 of Fig. 2 a BT device’s transmission controller can receive a message intended for another device and relay the message without waking up its host controller circuit).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee in view of Di Marco’s advertisement message relay transmission without waking its host controller circuit, as taught by Malovany.
The motivation for doing so would have been to conserve power in a BT device acting as a message relay, by not waking its host controller while relaying a message(s) to another BT device, as recognized by Malovany (paras. [0008], [0010], [0022], and [0024]; BT device 302 of Fig. 3; and block 203 of Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 16, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6, except claim 16 is directed to a method claim type. As such, claim 16 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee in view of Di Marco and Malovany, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 6.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Di Marco, in further view of US PG Pub. 2017/0026777 A1, Denboer et al. (hereinafter “Denboer”).
With respect to claim 9, Lee in view of Di Marco teaches the Bluetooth low energy mesh network system of claim 1.
However, Lee in view of Di Marco does not explicitly teach:
wherein if the transmission controller circuit determines that the advertising packet excludes the message, the host controller circuit continues operating in the sleep mode.
DenBoer does teach:
when a transmission controller circuit determines that an advertising packet excludes a message, a host controller circuit continues operating in the sleep mode (paras. [0032]-[0033], [0037], and [0042] —a communication controller device can receive an advertising packet without a message/information for processing by a host controller, and in response, the communications controller can decide not to wake the host controller).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee in view of Di Marco’s advertisement message transmission without waking its host controller circuit, as taught by DenBoer.
The motivation for doing so would have been to conserve power in a BT device, by not waking its host controller when not otherwise required for data processing, as recognized by DenBoer (paras. [0032]-[0033], [0037], and [0042]).
With respect to claim 19, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 9, except claim 19 is directed to a method claim type. As such, claim 19 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee in view of Di Marco and Denboer, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 9.
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee in view of Di Marco, in further view of US PG Pub. 2020/0053831 A1, Park et al. (hereinafter “Park”).
With respect to claim 10, Lee in view of Di Marco teaches the Bluetooth low energy mesh network system of claim 1.
However, Lee in view of Di Marco does not explicitly teach:
wherein if the transmission controller circuit determines that the advertising packet excludes the message, the transmission controller circuit is configured to discard the advertising packet.
Park does teach:
when a transmission controller circuit determines that an advertising packet excludes a message, the transmission controller circuit is configured to discard the advertising packet (paras. [0114] and [0123] —when BLE communication module receives an advertising packet that does not include a message addressed to it, it may determine to discard the received advertising packet, as an unintended recipient).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lee in view of Di Marco’s advertisement packet transmission by determining when a received packet does not have an intended message addressed to it, to discard it, as taught by Park.
The motivation for doing so would have been to discard any received advertising packets when a receiving BLE device communication module determines it is an unintended recipient, as recognized by Park (paras. [0114] and [0123]).
With respect to claim 20, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 10, except claim 20 is directed to a method claim type. As such, claim 20 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Lee in view of Di Marco and Park, for the same reasons explained above for dependent claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure is as follows:
US PG Pub 2019/0037419 A1, Knaapila: teaches various solutions for performing BLE mesh communications with broadcast messaging and inter-device relaying.
US PG Pub 2024/0224179 A1, Aloe: teaches BLE solutions related to HCI interface communications between Host Controller and BLE Controller entities.
US PG Pub 2023/0087730 A1, Narula et al.: teaches various solutions for communicating/processing BLE advertisements between/amongst mesh BT devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights