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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a detection unit that detects characteristic data” “a deletion unit that deletes the communication channel” “determination unit that determines” “a change unit that changes” in claim 1. “an initialization unit that initializes” in claim 3. “a channel map sharing unit that causes” in claim 4. “a restoration unit that restores” in claim 5.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1,3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The claim limitations “a detection unit that detects characteristic data” “a deletion unit that deletes the communication channel” “determination unit that determines” “a change unit that changes” in claim 1, “an initialization unit that initializes” in claim 3, “a channel map sharing unit that causes” in claim 4, “a restoration unit that restores” in claim 5 , invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure states that "The processor 211 constructs multiple function units by executing multiple instructions included in the program." Spec., [0033]. However, nowhere in the disclosure is are the "function units" constructed by the processor recited as the claimed "detection unit," "deletion unit," "determination unit," “a change unit,” “an initialization unit,” “a channel map sharing unit,” or “a restoration unit.” Instead, the Specification equates each "unit" with a step in figure 4. See e.g. ("Step S60 corresponds to a detection unit" in Spec., [0058] or "step S70 corresponds to a deletion unit" in Spec., [0059]). A single step in a method is insufficient structure for a means-plus-function limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C.112, second paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because
the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because claim 13 recites a method comprising “a detection step of detecting” , “a deletion step of deleting”, “a determination step of determining” and “a change step of changing.” It appears that the claim lists a combination of steps, which can be interpreted as a list of computer codes. Thus, claim 13 is a software per se claim, which is a non-statutory subject matter. Therefore, claim 13 is non-statutory.
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) 1,4,8-10,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou to (US20170280458) in view of Nagai to (US 20040192391 A1)
Regarding claims 1, 13 Lou teaches a wireless communication system that performs wireless communication between a master device and a slave device via one communication channel, which is sequentially selected from a plurality of communication channels, the wireless communication system comprising [0011] discloses the master device of the wireless connection communicates a new channel map to all the slave devices within a piconet. This may happen when a slave device connects to the wireless connection. Additionally, because the RF environment is subject to change, the master may periodically perform channel assessment and as a result of this new channel assessment, may change the channels used for the wireless connections) a detection unit that detects characteristic data indicating communication quality in the performed wireless communication, for each of the communication channels ([0012] The master device may use various methods for performing channel assessment. Methods may be categorized into active scanning, passive scanning, and Wireless Local Area Network (WLAN) look ahead methods. In active scanning the master uses its transceiver to look for interference on particular channels during times when the transceiver is not being used for active communications in the wireless connection (for example, between BLE connection events). The transceiver may tune into channels one at a time (e.g., using a round robin approach) and measure the RSSI on each channel. If the RSSI exceeds a peak threshold level over a predetermined time window (meaning that transmissions are occurring on the channel unrelated to the wireless connection), the channel will not be considered good) a deletion unit that deletes the communication channel, which is determined not to satisfy a predetermined communication quality standard based on the characteristic data detected by the detection unit, from the plurality of communication channels used for the wireless communication;([0027] discloses adapt to changing wireless conditions, the intermediary device may monitor any changes made to the channels used by the primary wireless connection. For example, the master device of the primary wireless connection may determine that the RF conditions of a channel may have changed and it is no longer a good channel. This channel is then removed from the channel map) a determination unit that determines, by deleting the communication channel by the deletion unit, ([0027] discloses the master device of the primary wireless connection may determine that the RF conditions of a channel may have changed and it is no longer a good channel. This channel is then removed from the channel map) ). However, Lou does not explicitly teach whether a total number of the plurality of communication channels used for the wireless communication is smaller than a minimum limit value; and a change unit that changes, when the determination unit determines that the total number of the plurality of communication channels used for the wireless communication is smaller than the minimum limit value, the plurality of communication channels used for the wireless communication to the plurality of communication channels that satisfies a relaxed communication quality standard, which is more relaxed than the predetermined communication quality standard
Nagai teaches whether a total number of the plurality of communication channels used for the wireless communication is smaller than a minimum limit value; ([0021] The determining a transmission rate per channel and the number of channels may be such that the transmission rate per channel is raised and the number of channels is reduced according to the derived value indicative of the quality of a communication line) and a change unit that changes, when the determination unit determines that the total number of the plurality of communication channels used for the wireless communication is smaller than the minimum limit value, the plurality of communication channels used for the wireless communication to the plurality of communication channels that satisfies a relaxed communication quality standard, which is more relaxed than the predetermined communication quality standard([0021] The determining a transmission rate per channel and the number of channels may be such that the transmission rate per channel is raised and the number of channels is reduced according to the derived value indicative of the quality of a communication line if the detected permissible delay time is greater than a predetermined threshold value and that the transmission rate per channel is lowered and the number of channels is increased according to the channel usage rate if the detected permissible delay time is less than or equal to the predetermined threshold value)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the system of Lou include whether a total number of the plurality of communication channels used for the wireless communication is smaller than a minimum limit value; and a change unit that changes, when the determination unit determines that the total number of the plurality of communication channels used for the wireless communication is smaller than the minimum limit value, the plurality of communication channels used for the wireless communication to the plurality of communication channels that satisfies a relaxed communication quality standard, which is more relaxed than the predetermined communication quality standard, as suggested by Nagai. This modification would benefit the system to facilitate availability of more channels for communication.
Regarding claim 4, Lou teaches a channel map sharing unit that causes, when the determination unit determines that the total number of the plurality of communication channels is equal to or larger than the minimum limit value, the master device and the slave device to share a channel map indicating the plurality of communication channels([0011] Once adequate channels are identified, the master device of the wireless connection communicates a new channel map to all the slave devices within a piconet), which is a determination target([0027] discloses the master device of the primary wireless connection may determine that the RF conditions of a channel may have changed and it is no longer a good channel. This channel is then removed from the channel map. The intermediary device (who is a slave of the second wireless connection) then learns of this through a channel update procedure initiated by the master device of the primary wireless connection).
Regarding claim 8, Lou teaches wherein a plurality of the slave devices is provided, the master device performs the wireless communication with each of the plurality of slave devices, the determination unit calculates the total number of the plurality of communication channels used for the wireless communication to be compared with the minimum limit value as a total number of the communication channels usable by all of the plurality of slave devices, and the plurality of communication channels used for the wireless communication is shared for the plurality of slave devices([0024] discloses a system designer may determine that the primary wireless connection is to have two reserved channels. The intermediary device may use all but two of the channels in the channel map of the primary wireless connection. In some examples, if the number of channels used by the primary wireless connection drops below a configurable threshold, the intermediary device may reduce the number of reserved channels used by the secondary wireless connection by a configurable amount. This may sacrifice some quality on the primary wireless connection to ensure that the secondary wireless connection is still able to communicate. For example, if the number of channels in the channel map drops below three, the number of channels reserved for the primary wireless connection may be reduced from 2 to 1).
Regarding claim 9, Lou teaches a plurality of the slave devices is provided,([0009] discloses devices participating in the piconet are termed slave devices) the master device performs the wireless communication with each of the plurality of slave devices,the determination unit calculates the total number of the plurality of communication channels used for the wireless communication to be compared with the minimum limit value, for each of the plurality of slave devices, ([0011] Once adequate channels are identified, the master device of the wireless connection communicates a new channel map to all the slave devices within a piconet. This may happen when a slave device connects to the wireless connection. Additionally, because the RF environment is subject to change, the master may periodically perform channel assessment and as a result of this new channel assessment, may change the channels used for the wireless connections) and the plurality of communication channels used for the wireless
communication is individually set for the plurality of slave devices([0011] Once adequate channels are identified, the master device of the wireless connection communicates a new channel map to all the slave devices within a piconet).
Regarding claim 10, Lou teaches wherein the wireless communication is packet communication,([0054] discloses Physical layer circuitry 3100 may utilize the frequencies of the channels determined by link layer circuitry 3080, e.g., channel map circuitry 3090 to transmit and receive data over a wireless link) and the characteristic data is at least one of received signal strength, signal-to-noise ratio/signal interference-to-noise ratio, packet error rate, packet arrival rate, and bit error rate in the packet communication([0012] The transceiver may tune into channels one at a time (e.g., using a round robin approach) and measure the RSSI on each channel. If the RSSI exceeds a peak threshold level over a predetermined time window (meaning that transmissions are occurring on the channel unrelated to the wireless connection), the channel will not be considered good).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou to (US20170280458) in view of Nagai to (US 20040192391 A1) further in view of Yang to (US20090041088)
Regarding claim 5, Lou and Nagai does not explicitly teach a restoration unit that restores, when a predetermined restoration condition is satisfied related to a communication channel that has been deleted by the deletion unit, the deleted communication channel to the plurality of communication channels used for the wireless communication.
However, Yang teaches a restoration unit that restores, when a predetermined restoration condition is satisfied related to a communication channel that has been deleted by the deletion unit, the deleted communication channel to the plurality of communication channels used for the wireless communication ([0030] discloses the channel re-activation of neighboring or/and betweenness channels is achieved by updating corresponding bad channel flags to erase bad channel marks, as shown in FIG. 4. The re-activated channels are reset by setting corresponding header error scores, confidence levels thereof, data error scores, and confidence levels thereof to zeros)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the system of Lou and Nagai include a restoration unit that restores, when a predetermined restoration condition is satisfied related to a communication channel that has been deleted by the deletion unit, the deleted communication channel to the plurality of communication channels used for the wireless communication, as suggested by Yang. This modification would benefit the system to facilitate availability of more channels for communication.
Claim(s) 11-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou to (US20170280458) in view of Nagai to (US 20040192391 A1) further in view of Kraeling to (US 20220167133 A1)
Regarding claim 11, Lou and Nagai do not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the master device and the slave device is mounted on a moving object
However, Kraeling teaches wherein at least one of the master device and the slave device is mounted on a moving object([0052] The vehicle consist may have a first or lead propulsion-generating unit and a second (trail or remote) propulsion-generating unit. The terms “lead,” “trail,” and “remote” indicate which of the propulsion-generating units control operations of other propulsion-generating units rather than referencing a direction of travel. Other terminology has been employed to indicate the relationship master/slave, mother/mate, and the like. It helps indicate which propulsion-generating units are controlled by other propulsion-generating units, regardless of locations within the vehicle consist)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to enable the system of Lou and Nagai include wherein at least one of the master device and the slave device is mounted on a moving object, as suggested by Kraeling. This modification would benefit the system as a design choice.
Regarding claim 12, Lou and Nagai and Kraeling teaches wherein the moving object is a vehicle(Kraeling [0029] discloses mobile server units in the vehicle system will wait additional time, to allow for the mobile server master to become active (e.g., if the mobile server master is on the lead vehicle).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3,6-7 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZEWDU A BEYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7157. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/ZEWDU A BEYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights