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 .
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-5, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over in view of Mehta et al. (US. Pub. NO. 2020/0323030 A1; hereinafter “MEHTA”) in view of Palanisamy et al. (US. Pub. No. 2016/0007138 A1; hereinafter “PALANISAMY”).
Regarding claim 1, Mehta teaches a method for operating a first personal internet of things (IoT) network (PIN) element (PINE) (see Mehta, fig. 1, client device 118, para. [0051]), the method comprising: s
transmitting, to a PIN server, a PIN creation request message (see Mehta, fig. 3C, servers 114, 120, request for network creation 331, para. [0113]);
receiving, from the PIN server, a PIN creation response message from the PIN server (see Mehta, fig. 3C, success 338, para. [0115]);
generating a PIN creation notification request message (see Mehta, fig. 3c, gateway node invite 336,337, para. [0114), wherein the PIN creation notification request message comprises a PIN identifier (ID) of the created PIN (see Mehta, para. [0114], network ID), and an indication indicating that at least one second PINE is made the member of the created PIN (see Mehta, fig. 2d, the gateway node invite 239, para. [0077], the invite indicating the gateway node to join network 102, para. [0115]);
transmitting, to the at least one second PINE, the PIN creation notification request message to the at least one second PINE (see Mehta, fig. 3c, para. [0115], node invite 337, to gateway node 106); and
receiving, from the at least one second PINE, a PIN creation notification response message from the at least one second PINE (see Mehta, fig. 3c, para. [0115], success addition of gateway node 106 to network 102, 338-2, from gateway node 106).
Mehta is silent to teaching that wherein the PIN creation request message including a list of second PINEs to be included in a PIN, and wherein the PIN creation response message from the PIN server including identifiers for second PINEs which are authorized and made a member of a created PIN.
In the same field of endeavor, PALANISAMY teaches a method wherein the PIN creation request message including a list of second PINEs to be included in a PIN (see PALANISAMY, fig. 2, 260, para. [0074,86,87], list of UEs, membership info fig. 5, step 2, para. [0116]), and wherein the PIN creation response message from the PIN server including identifiers for second PINEs which are authorized and made a member of a created PIN (see PALANISAMY, para. [0102-3], fig. 4, step 4, SIA, authorization of each UEs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Mehta with the teaching of PALANISAMY in order to improve group creations without manual intervention (see PALANISAMY, para. [0005-6]).
Regarding claim 2. (Currently Amended) The method of claim 1, wherein the at least one second PINE refrains from issuing a PIN join request based on the at least one second PINE already being made the member of the created PIN.
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Mehta and PALANISAMY teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the PIN creation request message comprises at least one of:
Security credentials of the at least one second PINE received during an authorization procedure (see Mehta, fig. 3c, 331, access token, para. [0113]),
a PINE identifier comprising at least one of at least one of a Generic Public Subscription Identifier (GPSI), a PIN client ID (see Mehta, para. [0117]), a PINE location, or a PIN client profile information.
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Mehta and PALANISAMY teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the PIN creation response message further comprises: a PIN ID of the created PIN (see PALANISAMY, fig. 3, steps 6, 7, para. [0091-93, group id).
Regarding claim 5, Mehta teaches a first personal internet of things (IoT) network (PIN) element (PINE) (see Mehta, fig. 1) comprising:
a memory (see Mehta, para. [0083]);
a processor (see Mehta, para. [0083]); and
a controller, coupled to the memory and the processor (see Mehta, para. [0083]), configured to:
transmit, to a PIN server, a PIN creation request message (see Mehta, fig. 3C, servers 114, 120, request for network creation 331, para. [0113]);
receive, from the PIN server, a PIN creation response message from the PIN server (see Mehta, fig. 3C, success 338, para. [0115]);
generate a PIN creation notification request message (see Mehta, fig. 3c, gateway node invite 336,337, para. [0114), wherein the PIN creation notification request message comprises a PIN identifier (ID) of the created PIN (see Mehta, para. [0114], network ID), and an indication indicating that at least one second PINE is made the member of the created PIN (see Mehta, fig. 2d, the gateway node invite 239, para. [0077], the invite indicating the gateway node to join network 102, para. [0115]);
transmit, to the at least one second PINE, the PIN creation notification request message to the at least one second PINE (see Mehta, fig. 3c, para. [0115], node invite 337, to gateway node 106); and
receive, from the at least one second PINE, a PIN creation notification response message from the at least one second PINE (see Mehta, fig. 3c, para. [0115], success addition of gateway node 106 to network 102, 338-2, from gateway node 106).
Mehta is silent to teaching that wherein the PIN creation request message including a list of second PINEs to be included in a PIN, and wherein the PIN creation response message from the PIN server including identifiers for second PINEs which are authorized and made a member of a created PIN.
In the same field of endeavor, PALANISAMY teaches a device wherein the PIN creation request message including a list of second PINEs to be included in a PIN (see PALANISAMY, fig. 2, 260, para. [0074,86,87], list of UEs, membership info fig. 5, step 2, para. [0116]), and wherein the PIN creation response message from the PIN server including identifiers for second PINEs which are authorized and made a member of a created PIN (see PALANISAMY, para. [0102-3], fig. 4, step 4, SIA, authorization of each UEs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Mehta with the teaching of PALANISAMY in order to improve group creations without manual intervention (see PALANISAMY, para. [0005-6]).
Regarding claims 7 and 8, the dependent claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claims 3 and 4, respectively.
3. Claim(s) 2 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta and PALANISAMY as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Liu (US. Pub. NO. 2025/0227781 A1).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Mehta and PALANISAMY teaches the method of claim 1.
The combination of Mehta and PALANISAMY is silent to teaching that wherein the at least one second PINE refrains from issuing a PIN join request based on the at least one second PINE already being made the member of the created PIN.
In the same field o endeavor, Liu teaches a method wherein the at least one second PINE refrains from issuing a PIN join request based on the at least one second PINE already being made a member of the created PIN (see Liu, fig. 14, 141, para. [0143-6], PIN member, step 144 updating subscription data with additional join requests).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Mehta and PALANISAMY with the teaching of Liu in order to provide efficient creations of PIN (see Liu, para. [0002-3]).
Regarding claim 6, the dependent claims are interpreted and rejected for the same reasons as set forth above in claim 2.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-8 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record 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.
Zhang et al. (US. Pub. No. 2025/0119858 A1) teach PIN profile.
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 WEN WU HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7852. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10-6.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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.
/WEN W HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648