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 Amendment
The amendment filed on June 10, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on June 10, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pp. 7 and 8 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues that Segev fails to teach the limitations “selecting, based on a use case involving a network cluster, one or more parameters related to discovery or maintenance of the network cluster, wherein the one or more parameters comprise a duration associated with one or more intervals between adjacent discovery windows (DWs)” of claim 1. In particular, Applicant contends that “Segev does not teach selecting a duration of intervals between adjacent DWs based on a use case. Rather, Segev discloses that "[t]he discovery windows 324a, 324b repeat every 512 milliseconds, i.e [sic] the discovery windows 324a, 324b have a time interval between windows 328 of 512 milliseconds." See Segev, paragraph [0039]. In other words, this 512ms interval is a fixed, predetermined value specified by the NAN protocol rather than a parameter that is selected based on a use case involving a network cluster.” Applicant’s response, p. 8. Examiner disagrees.
Segev teaches that “the time interval between discovery windows 328 can be more or less than 512 milliseconds.” Segev, ¶ [0039]. Segev further teaches “[a]dditionally or alternatively, time interval between windows, time interval of an entire sequence and/or transmission time of one discovery window may be varied. Additionally, or alternatively, the number of windows in a sequence can also be specified by the protocol, set by a user and/or vary in time and channel. This can be possible if changes to the time interval, duration, cluster parameters, and/or other special variable behavior are pre-defined if not pre-specified by the protocol.” Segev, ¶ [0042]. Since time interval can be varied, and the varying of the time interval can be achieved without pre-specifying it, the time interval taught by Segev is not a fixed, predetermined value.
Furthermore, “it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim.” MPEP, § 2111.01 (II). The term “use case” as recited in the claims, does not require it be limited to a particular use case, such as a particular “application objectives/requirements” as argued by Applicant on p. 8 of Applicant’s response. Additionally, nothing has been found in the specification of the present application that sufficiently defines the term “use case” without exemplification. Therefore, under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claims, “use case” can be a use for which a network cluster, such as the NAN cluster of Segev, is used, such as communication between the devices/network, such as the NAN enabled devices of the NAN cluster of Segev. Accordingly, Segev teaches the each and every limitation of amended claim 1.
Claim Objections
Claims 5 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: They have been amended but their respective status do not identify them as “Currently amended.” Appropriate correction is required going forward.
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, 4-8, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Segev (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0219422 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Segev teaches “[a]n apparatus for wireless communication, comprising: at least one transceiver; at least one memory comprising computer-executable instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer-executable instructions and cause the apparatus to:” (see ¶¶ [0031] and claim 1; NAN enabled device (i.e., apparatus) can also include a controller/microprocessor and a memory/storage; the memory/storage may also be used in connection with the execution of application programming or instructions by the controller/microprocessor; the controller/microprocessor may comprise a general purpose programmable processor or controller for executing application programming or instructions related to the NAN enabled device; communication device comprises a transceiver);
Segev further teaches “select, based on a use case involving a network cluster, one or more parameters related to discovery or maintenance of the network cluster, wherein the one or more parameters comprise a duration associated with one or more intervals between adjacent discovery windows (DWs)” (see ¶¶ [0026], [0039], [0042], and FIG. 1; a NAN communication environment may communicate information between two or more devices is shown in FIG. 1; the NAN communication environment can be a Neighbor Awareness Network (NAN) which includes a NAN cluster; the NAN cluster is formed when NAN enabled devices (i.e., includes a first wireless node) communicate and share a common set of NAN parameters/attributes; therefore, each NAN enabled device (i.e., first wireless device) is configured with one or more NAN parameters; thus, one or more NAN parameters are selected for the first wireless node; members of a NAN cluster include NAN enabled devices (first wireless node) that share common parameters/attributes, including a NAN device discovery windows; therefore, at the first wireless node, the one or more parameters are related to discovery of the network cluster; additionally or alternatively, time interval between windows, time interval of an entire sequence and/or transmission time of one discovery window may be varied; additionally, or alternatively, the number of windows in a sequence can also be specified by the protocol, set by a user and/or vary in time and channel; this can be possible if changes to the time interval, duration, cluster parameters, and/or other special variable behavior are pre-defined if not pre-specified by the protocol; under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claims, “use case” can be a use for which a network cluster, such as the NAN cluster of Segev, is used, such as communication between the devices/network, such as the NAN enabled devices of the NAN cluster of Segev; therefore, time interval is being selected based on a use case involving a network cluster; thus, teaches select, based on a use case involving a network cluster, one or more parameters related to discovery or maintenance of the network cluster, wherein the one or more parameters comprise a duration associated with one or more intervals between adjacent discovery windows (DWs)); and
Segev further teaches “participate, via the at least one transceiver, in at least one of discovery of the network cluster or maintenance of the network cluster, the participation being based on the selected parameters” (see ¶¶ [0026], [0039], and [0040]; the NAN cluster is formed when NAN enabled devices (i.e., includes a first wireless node) communicate and share a common set of NAN parameters/attributes including a NAN device discovery timeline; the NAN device discovery timeline include a series of discovery windows, which are the windows in a certain time and channel in which the NAN enabled devices can join the NAN cluster; NAN enabled device can also transmit NAN service discovery frames an indication that, that NAN enabled device wishes to participate in the NAN cluster; thus, a device participates in at least one of discovery of the network cluster or maintenance of the network cluster based on the selected parameters).
Regarding claim 4, Segev teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and further teaches “to participate, the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to transmit one or more synchronization beacons in DWs separated by the one or more intervals” (see ¶¶ [0039] and [0040]; the NAN device discovery timeline include a series of discovery windows which are the windows in a certain time and channel in which the NAN enabled devices can join the NAN cluster; synchronization beacons frames for example, are frames transmitted by at least one NAN enabled device for synchronizing with a common clock within a NAN cluster; these frames can enable connectivity between NAN enabled devices when received by other NAN enabled device looking to join the NAN cluster; NAN enabled device can also transmit NAN service discovery frames as an indication that, that NAN enabled device wishes to participate in the NAN cluster; thus, one or more synchronization beacons in DWs separated by the one or more intervals are transmitted in DWs).
Regarding claim 5, Segev also teaches the apparatus of claim 4 and further teaches “wherein the one or more intervals are on an order of minutes” (see ¶ [0039]; the time interval between discovery windows can be more or less than 512 milliseconds (i.e., on an order of minutes); more than 512 milliseconds comprise minutes also; thus, the one or more intervals are on an order of minutes).
Regarding claim 6, Segev also teaches the apparatus of claim 4 and further teaches “wherein the one or more synchronization beacons are transmitted in an early wakeup period of the DWs” (see ¶ [0040]; the NAN device discovery timeline include a series of discovery windows which are the windows in a certain time and channel in which the NAN enabled devices can join the NAN cluster; synchronization beacons frames for example, are frames transmitted by at least one NAN enabled device for synchronizing with a common clock within a NAN cluster; thus, the one or more synchronization beacons are transmitted in an early wakeup period of the DWs).
Regarding claim 7, Segev also teaches the apparatus of claim 4 and further teaches “wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the apparatus to: refrain from transmitting discovery beacons in the one or more intervals between DWs” (see ¶ [0039]; during the time interval between discovery windows, NAN devices are able to sleep; therefore, during the intervals between DWs, the NAN devices may not transmit any beacons, thus, refrain from transmitting discovery beacons in the one or more intervals between DWs).
Regarding claim 8, Segev also teaches the apparatus of claim 4 and further teaches “wherein: the one or more parameters further comprise synchronization beacon pattern parameters; and the one or more synchronization beacons are transmitted, via the at least one transceiver, in DWs in accordance with the synchronization beacon pattern parameters” (see ¶¶ [0039], [0040], and [0044]; synchronization beams are transmitted in accordance with the discovery window intervals; therefore, the interval at which the synchronization beacons are transmitted is synchronization beacon pattern; thus, parameters configuring synchronization beams also comprise synchronization beacon pattern parameters, and synchronization beacons are transmitted in DWs in accordance with the synchronization beacon pattern parameters).
Regarding claim 9, Segev also teaches the apparatus of claim 8 and further teaches “wherein the synchronization beacon pattern parameters comprise at least one of a DW periodicity or interval between synchronization beacons, selected based on the use case” (see ¶¶ [0039], [0040], and [0044]; synchronization beams are transmitted in accordance with the discovery window intervals; therefore, parameters configuring synchronization beams indicate at least one of a DW periodicity or interval between synchronization beacons; additionally, under BRI, the limitation “use case,” as recited, can be interpreted as any use of the NAN network/device, which can be communication between the devices/network; thus,
Regarding claim 17, it is a method claim corresponding to claim 1 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claim 17 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, it is device claim corresponding to claim 1 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claim 20 is rejected under the same rationale.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 3, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segev in view of Qi et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0157193).
Regarding claim 2, Segev teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose “the use case involves tracking a location of one or more wireless nodes in the network cluster” of claim 2. However, the foregoing limitations were well known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Qi teaches “the use case involves tracking a location of one or more wireless nodes in the network cluster” (see ¶ [0015]; user device(s) may communicate with other user device(s) in a NAN to exchange ranging and/or location information. thus, the use case involves tracking a location of one or more wireless nodes in the network cluster). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Segev to incorporate the teachings of Qi to track a location of one or more wireless nodes in the network cluster. The suggestion to do so would have been to efficiency in the exchange of data between user devices and may increase network traffic (see ¶ [0003] of Qi).
Regarding claim 3, Segev teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose “share, via the at least one transceiver, location information of at least a first wireless node via a wireless wide area network (WWAN)” of claim 3. However, the foregoing limitations were well known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Qi teaches “share, via the at least one transceiver, location information of at least a first wireless node via a wireless wide area network (WWAN)” (see ¶¶ [0015] and [0020]; user device(s) may communicate with other user device(s) in a NAN to exchange ranging and/or location information; user devices may be configured to communicate with each other via the network and the network may be a wide area network (WAN); thus, location information of at least a first wireless node is shared via a wireless wide area network (WWAN)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Segev to incorporate the teachings of Qi to share location information via WAN. The suggestion to do so would have been to efficiency in the exchange of data between user devices and may increase network traffic (see ¶ [0003] of Qi).
Regarding claim 18, it is a method claim corresponding to claim 2 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 2. Claim 18 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 10, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segev in view of Abraham et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0223047).
Regarding claim 10, Segev teaches the apparatus of claim 8, and further teaches “transmit, via the at least one transceiver, at least one synchronization beacon between DWs” (see ¶ [0040]; if a NAN enabled device wishes to join a NAN cluster, but misses the synchronization beacon frames, the NAN enabled device can still do so without having to wait for a new discovery window; instead, the device can use NAN discovery beacon frames sent by the NAN master to synchronize; therefore, the discovery beacons here are functioning as synchronization beacons because they are helping a device to synchronize; these frames can only be sent by a NAN master and are generally transmitted during the interval between discovery windows; thus, transmit, via the at least one transceiver, at least one synchronization beacon between DWs).
Segev does not explicitly disclose “detect a wakeup signal from a second wireless node during an interval between DWs, while one or more processing blocks of the first wireless node are disabled; enable the one or more processing blocks after detecting the wakeup signal; and . . . after enabling the one or more processing blocks, after detecting the wakeup signal” of claim 10. However, the foregoing limitations were well known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Abraham teaches “detect a wakeup signal from a first wireless node during an interval between DWs, while one or more processing blocks of the apparatus are disabled; enable the one or more processing blocks after detecting the wakeup signal . . . after enabling the one or more processing blocks” (see ¶¶ [0042], [0058], [0060], and FIG. 2; one of the NAN devices may transmit a wakeup message to another NAN device (i.e., detect a wakeup signal from a second wireless node); the wakeup message (wakeup signal) is received (detected) between discovery windows; the “wake up” message indicates that the mobile device is to activate (or “wake up”) to receive one or more NAN communications (i.e., enabe the one or more processing blocks); therefore, the wakeup message (wakeup signal) is received (detected) while one or more processing blocks of the apparatus are disabled; after NAN device is activated (i.e., enabling the one or more processing blocks, after detecting the wakeup signal), a synchronization beacon is transmitted; thus, a wakeup signal from a first wireless node during an interval between DWs is detected, while one or more processing blocks of the first apparatus are disabled and enabling the one or more processing blocks, after detecting the wakeup signal and transmitting a sync beacon after enabling the one or more processing blocks).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Segev to incorporate the teachings of Abraham to detect wakeup signal during interval between discovery windows and enabling processing blocks after detecting the wakeup signal. The suggestion to do so would have been to reduce power consumption caused by searching for synchronization beacons (see ¶ [0042] of Abraham).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Segev and Abraham teaches the apparatus of claim 10, and further teaches “wherein the detecting is performed when monitoring for the wakeup signal during intervals between DWs, according to a duty cycle” (see ¶ [0058] of Abraham; the wake up message (wakeup signal) may be received (detected) at a known time (i.e., a duty cycle) prior to the start of a discovery window; thus, the detecting is performed when monitoring for the wakeup signal during intervals between DWs, according to a duty cycle). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Segev to incorporate the teachings of Abraham to detect wakeup signal according to a duty cycle. The suggestion to do so would have been to reduce power consumption caused by searching for synchronization beacons (see ¶ [0042] of Abraham).
Claims 12, 13, 16, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segev in view of Patil et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0109981).
Regarding claim 12, Segev teaches the apparatus of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose “transmit, via the at least one transceiver, a first frame indicating a capability of the apparatus to aggregate data from one or more other wireless nodes of the network cluster and share aggregated data via a wireless wide area network (WWAN)” of claim 12. However, the foregoing limitations were well known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Patil teaches “transmit, via the at least one transceiver, a first frame indicating a capability of the apparatus to aggregate data from one or more other wireless nodes of the network cluster and share aggregated data via a wireless wide area network (WWAN)” (see ¶¶ [0097] and [0098]; the TIM bits may be aggregate TIM bits (i.e., aggregate data) comprising information for multiple devices communicating on mesh networks (i.e., one or more other wireless nodes of the network cluster); the TIM bits are communicated in the NAN paging window (paging window on the NAN channel); the mesh network may be part of the NAN cluster; thus, aggregated data shared via a wireless wide area network (WWAN); a device of the network may indicate presence of buffered traffic via TIM bits (i.e., output a first frame indicating capability to aggregate); thus, a first frame indicating a capability of the first wireless node to aggregate data from one or more other wireless nodes of the network cluster and share aggregated data via a wireless wide area network (WWAN) is transmitted). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Segev to incorporate the teachings of Patil to indicate capability to aggregate and share data of one or more other devices of network cluster. The suggestion to do so would have been to reduce overhead for synchronizing devices in NAN (see ¶ [0045] of Patil).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Segev and Patil teaches the apparatus of claim 12, and further teaches “wherein the apparatus is one of multiple wireless nodes allowed to aggregate data and share aggregated data via the WWAN” (see ¶¶ [0097] and [0098] of Patil; one the devices of the mesh network (i.e., the apparatus of the multiple wireless nodes) is aggregating data (i.e., allowed to aggregate data and share aggregated data via the WWAN); thus, wherein the apparatus is one of multiple wireless nodes allowed to aggregate data and share aggregated data via the WWAN). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Segev to incorporate the teachings of Patil to have one of devices of the NAN cluster to aggregate and share data of one or more other devices of network cluster. The suggestion to do so would have been to reduce overhead for synchronizing devices in NAN (see ¶ [0045] of Patil).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Segev and Patil teaches the apparatus of claim 12, and further teaches “receive, via the at least one transceiver, a second frame indicating the apparatus has been selected as an aggregator node; receive, from at least one other wireless node via the at least one transceiver, data; aggregate the data with data from the first apparatus; and transmit, via the at least one transceiver, the aggregated data for transmission via the WWAN” (see ¶¶ [0097] and [0098] of Patil; the TIM bits may be aggregate TIM bits (i.e., aggregate data) comprising information for multiple devices communicating on mesh networks (i.e., one or more other wireless nodes of the network cluster); thus, receive, from at least one other wireless node via the at least one transceiver, data and aggregate the data with data from the first apparatus; the TIM bits are communicated in the NAN paging window (paging window on the NAN channel); the mesh network may be part of the NAN cluster; thus, output the aggregated data for transmission via the WWAN; a device of the network may indicate presence of buffered traffic via TIM bits in the NAN paging window; thus, receive a second frame indicating the apparatus has been selected as an aggregator node). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Segev to incorporate the teachings of Patil to select one of devices of the NAN cluster devices to aggregate and share data of one or more other devices of network cluster. The suggestion to do so would have been to reduce overhead for synchronizing devices in NAN (see ¶ [0045] of Patil).
Regarding claim 19, it is a method claim corresponding to claim 12 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 12. Claim 19 is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Segev in view of Patil and further in view of Kasslin et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2015/0036540).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Segev and Patil teaches the apparatus of claim 12, but does not explicitly disclose “wherein the first frame further indicates an aggregation rank” of claim 14. However, the foregoing limitations were well known prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Kasslin teaches “wherein the first frame further indicates an aggregation rank” (see ¶ [0269]; master device of NAN transmits beacons (i.e., the first frame) that include (i.e., indicates) a master rank (i.e., aggregation rank); the present application at paragraph [0088] describes that the parameter referred to as aggregator rank may serve in a similar manner as a master rank used to select master and anchor master nodes in a network cluster formation; therefore, Kasslin’s master rank teaches the aggregation rank of the claim; thus, Kasslin teaches the first frame further indicates an aggregation rank). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Segev in view of Patil to incorporate the teachings of Kasslin to indicate aggregation rank. The suggestion to do so would have been to provide device with awareness of about local networking environment (see ¶ [0006] of Kasslin).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Segev, Patil, and Kasslin teaches the apparatus of claim 14 and further teaches “generate the aggregation rank as a function of at least one of: a signal quality metric for the WWAN measured by the apparatus, a remaining battery life of the at least one wireless node, or a role performed by the apparatus in the network cluster” (see ¶ [0269]; when a master device transmits beacons, it not only communicates its own master rank and its own TSF value, but it also transmits information about the anchor master's master rank (aggregation rank) and the hop count distance from the anchor master to the transmitting device; therefore, the master rank of master device will be lower than that of an anchor device; thus the master rank is based at least on a role performed by the apparatus in the network cluster). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Segev in view of Patil to incorporate the teachings of Kasslin to determine aggregation rank based on a role of the device. The suggestion to do so would have been to provide device with awareness of about local networking environment (see ¶ [0006] of Kasslin).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY whose telephone number is (571)272-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/ supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights