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 with respect to claim(s) 1, 9 and 17 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karimli et al., US2019/0327591 A1 in view of Pizot et al., US2017/0264597 A1, and further in view of Kunjukrishnan et al., US2020/0336548 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Karimli teaches A method for information transmission (Fig. 8, par. 0107; process 800 for provisioning device and/or line sharing capabilities to an IoT device.), wherein the method comprises: receiving, by a network device, a first passive internet of things instruction (par. 0108; the provisioning module 516 can receive first data from an IoT device 300. The first data can include an identifier. That is, the first data can correspond to a token as described above.), and sending, by the network device, the first passive internet of things instruction to a terminal (par. 0115; the provisioning module 516 can send a communication to the IoT device 300 and/or the mobile device 400 to indicate that provisioning the line and/or device sharing capabilities to the IoT device 300 was successful.); and wherein the terminal is a helper of the tag (par. 0055; the token and/or data indicating a subscriber account and/or a communication address associated with the mobile device (e.g., mobile device 104) can be provisioned to the authentication module 312 via a short-range communication network (e.g., Bluetooth®, Near Field Communication (NFC), etc. (i.e., tag)).).
Karimli fails to teach the following recited limitations. However, Pizot teaches wherein the first passive internet of things instruction is an instruction to be sent to a tag (par. 0005; an IoT device refers to a hardware device, vehicle, building, or other item embedded with electronics, instructions, sensors and/or network connections, that enable the IoT device to exchange information with other IoT devices and/or web services provided by the IoT. An IoT device may have a passive communication interface, such as a quick response (QR) code, a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, a near-field communication (NFC) tag.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Karimli’s teachings with Pizot’s teachings in order to scale the number of devices to which they communicate rapidly with low overhead on message transmission so as not to become a bottleneck (Pizot, par. 0007).
Karimli and Pizot failed to teach the amended claim limitations. However, Kunjukrishnan teaches wherein the first passive internet of things instruction comprises at least one of an inventory instruction, a read instruction, or a write instruction (par. 0034; the passive IoT device 124 may correspond to a coffee cup and a container of orange juice that each have an RFID tag or barcode (i.e., the read instruction on either the RFID tag or barcode contains “sensed” or “not sensed” pairing condition).); and sending, by the network device, the received first passive internet of things instruction to a terminal (par. 0034; The IoT pairing controller may then transmit the appropriate client-defined statement to the client device, based at least in part on the determined “sensed” or “not sensed” pairing condition.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Karimli’s in view of Pizot’s teachings with Kunjukrishnan teachings in order to generate an IoT platform that enables end-users to customize an operation and implementation of IoT devices to suit their personal preferences (Kunjukrishnan, par. 0011).
Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18, Karimli, Pizot and Kunjukrishnan teach all the limitations in claims 1, 9 and 17. Karimli further teaches wherein the first passive internet of things instruction received by the network device is comprised in a first message, and the first message further comprises identification information or address information of the tag (par. 0028); and wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the network device based on the identification information or the address information of the tag, that the helper of the tag is the terminal (par. 0025).
Regarding claims 3 and 11, Karimli, Pizot and Kunjukrishnan teach all the limitations in claims 2 and 10. Karimli further teaches wherein the method further comprises: receiving, by the network device via control plane signaling of the tag, first information from an access network device that serves the terminal, wherein the first information indicates that there is a correspondence between the terminal and the tag, the correspondence is for determining that the terminal is the helper of the tag, and the network device is a mobility management network element that serves the terminal (par. 0054); or receiving, by the network device, the first information from a mobility management network element or a session management function network element that serves the terminal, wherein the network device is a user plane function network element or a passive internet of things network element (par. 0054).
Regarding claims 4 and 12, Karimli, Pizot and Kunjukrishnan teach all the limitations in claims 3 and 11. Karimli further teaches wherein the first information comprises one or more of: identification information of the terminal and identification information of the tag; or address information of the terminal and address information of the tag (par. 0055).
Regarding claims 5 and 13, Karimli, Pizot and Kunjukrishnan teach all the limitations in claims 1 and 9. Karimli further teaches wherein the network device is a mobility management network element that serves the terminal, a user plane function network element, or a passive internet of things network element (par. 0051); the first passive internet of things instruction received by the network device is comprised in a first message, and the first message further comprises identification information of an access network device (par. 0025); and the terminal is one or more of terminals served by the access network device, and wherein the method further comprises: determining, by the network device, that the helper of the tag is the terminal (par. 0026).
Regarding claims 6 and 14, Karimli, Pizot and Kunjukrishnan teach all the limitations in claims 2 and 10. Karimli further teaches wherein the network device is an access network device that serves the terminal (par. 0079); and the method further comprises: receiving, by the network device, a response to the first passive internet of things instruction from the tag, wherein the response comprises identification information of the tag (par. 0074); and sending, by the network device via control plane signaling of the tag, the response to a mobility management network element that serves the terminal (par. 0074).
Regarding claims 7, 15 and 19, Karimli, Pizot and Kunjukrishnan teach all the limitations in claims 1, 9 and 17. Karimli further teaches wherein the network device is an access network device that serves the terminal or a mobility management network element that serves the terminal (par. 0079); and the sending, by the network device, the first passive internet of things instruction to a terminal comprises: sending, by the network device, the first passive internet of things instruction to the terminal via control plane signaling of the terminal (par. 0071).
Regarding claims 8, 16 and 20, Karimli, Pizot and Kunjukrishnan teach all the limitations in claims 7, 15 and 19. Karimli further teaches wherein the control plane signaling of the terminal indicates the terminal to send the first passive internet of things instruction to the tag (par. 0108).
Regarding claim 9, Karimli teaches A network device (Fig. 5 item 500; server 500), comprising at least one processor (par. 0079; the server(s) 500 include processor(s) 502) and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor and storing programming instructions (par. 0079; computer-readable media 504) for execution by the at least one processor to cause the network device to perform operations comprising: receiving a first passive internet of things instruction (par. 0108; the provisioning module 516 can receive first data from an IoT device 300. The first data can include an identifier. That is, the first data can correspond to a token as described above.); and sending the first passive internet of things instruction to a terminal (par. 0115; the provisioning module 516 can send a communication to the IoT device 300 and/or the mobile device 400 to indicate that provisioning the line and/or device sharing capabilities to the IoT device 300 was successful.), wherein the terminal is a helper of the tag (par. 0055; the token and/or data indicating a subscriber account and/or a communication address associated with the mobile device (e.g., mobile device 104) can be provisioned to the authentication module 312 via a short-range communication network (e.g., Bluetooth®, Near Field Communication (NFC), etc. (i.e., tag)).).
Karimli fails to teach the following recited limitations. However, Pizot teaches wherein the first passive internet of things instruction is an instruction to be sent to a tag (par. 0005; an IoT device refers to a hardware device, vehicle, building, or other item embedded with electronics, instructions, sensors and/or network connections, that enable the IoT device to exchange information with other IoT devices and/or web services provided by the IoT. An IoT device may have a passive communication interface, such as a quick response (QR) code, a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, a near-field communication (NFC) tag.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Karimli’s teachings with Pizot’s teachings in order to scale the number of devices to which they communicate rapidly with low overhead on message transmission so as not to become a bottleneck (Pizot, par. 0007).
Karimli and Pizot failed to teach the amended claim limitations. However, Kunjukrishnan teaches wherein the first passive internet of things instruction comprises at least one of an inventory instruction, a read instruction, or a write instruction (par. 0034; the passive IoT device 124 may correspond to a coffee cup and a container of orange juice that each have an RFID tag or barcode (i.e., the read instruction on either the RFID tag or barcode contains “sensed” or “not sensed” pairing condition).); and sending the received first passive internet of things instruction to a terminal (par. 0034; The IoT pairing controller may then transmit the appropriate client-defined statement to the client device, based at least in part on the determined “sensed” or “not sensed” pairing condition.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Karimli’s in view of Pizot’s teachings with Kunjukrishnan teachings in order to generate an IoT platform that enables end-users to customize an operation and implementation of IoT devices to suit their personal preferences (Kunjukrishnan, par. 0011).
Regarding claim 17, Karimli teaches A communication apparatus (Fig. 4 item 400; mobile device 400), comprising at least one processor (par. 0065; processor(s) 402) and at least one memory coupled to the at least one processor and storing instructions (par. 0065; computer-readable media 404) for execution by the at least one processor to cause the communication apparatus to perform operations comprising: receiving a first passive internet of things instruction from a network device (par. 0102; the authentication module 312 can provide a token to a mobile device 400.); and sending an excitation signal and the first passive internet of things instruction to the tag (par. 0102; the mobile device 400 can send the token with the request to provision its subscriber account and/or communication address to the IoT device 300.).
Karimli fails to teach the following recited limitations. However, Pizot teaches wherein the first passive internet of things instruction is an instruction to be sent to a tag (par. 0005; an IoT device refers to a hardware device, vehicle, building, or other item embedded with electronics, instructions, sensors and/or network connections, that enable the IoT device to exchange information with other IoT devices and/or web services provided by the IoT. An IoT device may have a passive communication interface, such as a quick response (QR) code, a radio-frequency identification (RFID) tag, a near-field communication (NFC) tag.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Karimli’s teachings with Pizot’s teachings in order to scale the number of devices to which they communicate rapidly with low overhead on message transmission so as not to become a bottleneck (Pizot, par. 0007).
Karimli and Pizot failed to teach the amended claim limitations. However, Kunjukrishnan teaches wherein the first passive internet of things instruction comprises at least one of an inventory instruction, a read instruction, or a write instruction (par. 0034; the passive IoT device 124 may correspond to a coffee cup and a container of orange juice that each have an RFID tag or barcode (i.e., the read instruction on either the RFID tag or barcode contains “sensed” or “not sensed” pairing condition).); and sending an excitation signal and the received first passive internet of things instruction to the tag (par. 0034; The IoT pairing controller may then transmit the appropriate client-defined statement to the client device, based at least in part on the determined “sensed” or “not sensed” pairing condition.). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine Karimli’s in view of Pizot’s teachings with Kunjukrishnan teachings in order to generate an IoT platform that enables end-users to customize an operation and implementation of IoT devices to suit their personal preferences (Kunjukrishnan, par. 0011).
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 AYODEJI O AYOTUNDE whose telephone number is (571)270-7983. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00am-3:30pm.
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/AYODEJI O AYOTUNDE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights