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 April 9, 2026, in response to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on January 9, 2026, has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments:
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 14-17, filed April 9, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Goyal.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Borges (US 20230033043 A1 and Borges hereinafter) and further in view of Goyal (US 20190320407 A1 and Goyal hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Borges suggests a method comprising:
identifying, by a first device, a shared context ([0023]”the enhanced discovery procedures of this disclosure can be used within a wireless local area network (WLAN)” and ([0040]”the publisher and subscriber devices are configured to perform the discovery procedure using their WLAN transceivers”) (Where the WLAN is the shared context for the devices to connect)) for a ([0004]” some aspects of this disclosure are directed to a publisher device recursively iterating between a single channel publish phase and a multi-channel publish phase to discover one or more subscriber devices until the discover procedure is terminated”) or a second discovery process for a second device ([0004]” Additionally, some aspects of this disclosure are directed to a subscriber device performing the discovery procedure in a single channel subscribe phase to discover one or more publisher devices.”);
determining, by the first device, one or more parameters of the first discovery process for the first device based on the shared context ([0006]”determining, by a publisher device, a first time period (being the recited parameters) for a single channel publish phase and determining, by the publisher device, a second time period for a multi-channel publish phase.” Also see [0030-0031]); and
performing or resuming, by the first device, the first discovery process for the first device based on the one or more parameters ([0006]” transmitting (being the recited preforming), by the publisher device, one or more frames during at least one of the first time period of the single channel publish phase or the second time period of the multi-channel publish phase”).
Borges doesn’t explicitly teach
wherein the shared context comprises a common timing reference derived from a Timing Synchronization Function (TSF) timestamp of a designated access point, and wherein the one or more parameters of the first discovery process are determined based on the common timing reference.
However in a similar field of endeavor Goyal teaches
wherein the shared context comprises a common timing reference derived from a Timing Synchronization Function (TSF) timestamp of a designated access point (“When a NAN device 204 is turned on, or otherwise when NAN-functionality is enabled, the NAN device periodically transmits NAN discovery beacons (for example, every 100 TUs, every 128 TUs or another suitable period) and NAN synchronization beacons (for example, every 512 TUs or another suitable period) (i.e. timestamp). Discovery beacons are management frames, transmitted between discovery windows, used to facilitate the discovery of NAN clusters. A NAN cluster is a collection of NAN devices within a NAN network (i.e. designated access point) that are synchronized to the same clock and discovery window schedule using a time synchronization function (TSF).”[0040] and FIG 2), and wherein the one or more parameters of the first discovery process are determined based on the common timing reference (“The links between the NAN devices 204 in a NAN cluster are associated with discovery windows—the times and channel on which the NAN devices converge (i.e. common timing reference). At the beginning of each discovery window, one or more NAN devices 204 may transmit a NAN synchronization beacon, which is a management frame used to synchronize the timing of the NAN devices within the NAN cluster to that of the master device.”[0041] and FIG 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Borges with the method suggested by Goyal. The motivation would be so network connectivity can be maintained, see Goyal at [0039].
Regarding Claim 2 and Claim 18, Borges in view of Goyal, Borges-Goyal hereinafter, suggests all the limitations of claims 1 and 17 respectively, as discussed above. Borges also suggests wherein the ([0022]” some aspects of this disclosure include enhanced discovery procedures in Neighbor Awareness Networking (NAN) for a first electronic device (publisher device) (e.g., a NAN device) to find other devices (subscriber device)”and [0044] “before beginning the discovery procedure and/or before each of the single channel publish phase(s) 204, the publisher device 201 can determine the channel to be used for discovery during the single channel publish phase”).
Regarding Claim 3 and Claim 19, Borges-Goyal suggests all the limitations of claims 1 and 17, as discussed above. Borges also suggests
wherein: the ([0055]”a subscriber device that is capable of tuning its transceiver (e.g., a WLAN transceiver such as a Wi-Fi™ radio) to the default publish channel”);
the method further comprises predicting, by the first device, a behavior of the second device based on the shared context ([0008]” The electronic device (the publisher device) includes a transceiver configured to communicate with a second electronic device (the subscriber device) and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver. The processor is configured to determine (predict) a time period for a single channel subscribe phase and determine a channel for the single channel subscribe phase.”), wherein the shared context is used by the second device in a preconfigured manner to determine the second discovery process ([0009]” determine, by a subscriber device, a time period for a single channel subscribe phase and determining, by the subscriber device a channel for the single channel subscribe phase. The method further includes transmitting a service specific message to a publisher device in response to receiving one or more frames from the publisher device (preconfigured based on publisher device’s prediction) on the channel for the single channel subscribe phase and during the time period for the single channel subscribe phase”); and
the one or more parameters of the first discovery process are determined by the first device based on the predicted behavior of the second device ([0008]” The processor is further configured to send, using the transceiver, a service specific message to the second electronic device in response to receiving one or more frames (being the recited parameters) from the second electronic device on the channel for the single channel subscribe phase and during the time period for the single channel subscribe phase.”).
Regarding Claim 4 and Claim 20, Borges-Goyal suggests all the limitations of claims 1 and 17, as discussed above. Borges also suggests wherein the shared context reduces randomness of determining at least one of a dwell time or a channel frequency in the ([0034] “According to some aspects, the randomness in the time spent in each single channel phase and multi-channel phase can avoid a case (being the recited reduction in randomness) where the publisher device (e.g., device 120a) and the subscriber device (e.g., device 120b) are in lock-step (e.g., change concurrently) and thus will not find each other (this leads to an increase in the likelihood of the discovery process’s success). Device 120a iterates between the single channel publish phase and multi-channel publish phase on expiry of the respective time periods (e.g., dwell time periods)”).
Regarding Claim 5 and Claim 13, Borges-Goyal suggests all the limitations of claims 1 and 9 respectively, as discussed above. Borges also suggests wherein the shared context comprises at least one of:
an SSID of an ([0003]” NAN enables electronic devices to use their wireless local area network (WLAN) transceivers (Where the recited SSID is the unique identifier for the WLAN) (e.g., Wi-Fi™ transceivers) to directly connect to each other.”);
a channel of the ([0044]” Therefore, a subscriber device (not shown) that is capable of tuning its transceiver (e.g., a WLAN transceiver such as a Wi-Fi™ radio) to the default publish channel can do so, e.g., responsive to receiving the trigger for discovery, and rendezvous with the publisher device 201.”); and
a low [[E]]energy ([0068]”The cellular networks can include, but are not limited to, 3G/4G/5G networks such as Universal Mobile Telecommunications System (UMTS), Long-Term Evolution (LTE), and the like. Bluetooth™ subsystem (not shown) can include one or more circuits (including a Bluetooth™ transceiver) to enable connection(s) and communication based on, for example, Bluetooth™ protocol, the Bluetooth™ Low Energy protocol, or the Bluetooth™ Low Energy Long Range protocol.”) and containing a guaranteed Single Channel Publish (SCP) interval of the first device (Fig.2 and [0035]” According to some aspects, device 120a can send one or more broadcast NAN SDF publish frames when in the single channel publish phase…a minimum time interval between two NAN SDF frames can be configured by the service”).
Regarding Claim 6 and Claim 14, Borges-Goyal suggests all the limitations of claims 1 and 9, as discussed above. Further Borges suggests wherein the shared context is provided by a common application executing on both the first device and the second device ([0003]”In some examples, NAN enables electronic devices to use their wireless local area network (WLAN) transceivers (e.g., Wi-Fi™ transceivers) to directly connect to each other.”).
Regarding Claim 7 and Claim 15, Borges-Goyal suggests all the limitations of claims 6 and 14, as discussed above. Borges also suggests wherein the shared context comprises at least one of:
one or more broadcast parameters of a local ([0003] “Neighbor Awareness Networking (NAN) or Wi-Fi Aware™ enables electronic devices to discover each other and directly connect to each other without any other connections between them” and [0035 ” device 120a can send one or more broadcast NAN SDF publish frames”]. Also, see [0068]” WLAN subsystem (not shown) can include one or more circuits (including a WLAN transceiver) to enable connection(s) and communication over WLAN networks such as, but not limited to, networks based on standards described in IEEE 802.11 (which describes protocols for implementing WLAN communication, including broadcast frequency bands and data rates) (such as, but not limited to, IEEE 802.11ac, IEEE 802.11ax, IEEE 802.11bc, IEEE 802.11bd, IEEE 802.11be, Wi-Fi™ Alliance Wi-Fi Aware™ specification, IEEE 802.11 Public Action Frame, etc.).”);
a seed for a random number generator ([0030]” the time period for the single channel publish phase is determined randomly or pseudo-randomly from a range of time periods. For example, the time period of the single channel publish phase can be N*100 TU (e.g., 1 TU=1024 μs), where N is a random integer within a range between a minimum value and a maximum value (where N is the seed to generator a random number)”); and
a cellular network time ([0003]” In some examples, the electronic devices (e.g., the NAN devices) are required to establish timing synchronization(being the recite cellular network time) between them during their discovery procedure”).
Regarding Claim 8 and Claim 16, Borges-Goyal suggests all the limitations of claims 1 and 9, as discussed above. Borges also suggests wherein the ([0002] “The described aspects generally relate to discovery procedures for Neighbor Awareness Networking (NAN).” and [0040])“the publisher and subscriber devices are configured to perform the discovery procedure using their WLAN transceivers and without any association (being the recited “Unsynchronized Service Discovery”) between the publisher and subscriber devices (e.g., in unassociated state)”).
Regarding claim 9, Borges-Goyal suggests all the limitations of claim 1 in device form rather than method form. Borges also suggests a device ([0008] ”Some aspects of this disclosure relate to an electronic device. The electronic device includes a transceiver configured to communicate with a second electronic device and a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver.”). Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to the limitations of claim 9.
Regarding claim 17, Borges-Goyal suggests all the limitations of claim 1 in computer readable medium form rather than method form. Borges also suggests a computer readable medium ([0007] ”Some aspects of the disclosure relate to a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by a processor of a publisher device, cause the processor to perform operations including determining a first time period for a single channel publish phase and determining a second time period for a multi-channel publish phase”). Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to the limitations of claim 17.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Abraham (US 20140198725 A1) which teaches determining a discovery period using a start time, i.e. time synchronization function (TSF).
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.
/IYONDA L LEWIS/Examiner, Art Unit 2647
/Alison Slater/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights