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 § 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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Patil et al. (US 2016/0014693).
Referring to Claim 7, Patil teaches a computer system, comprising:
a processor (paragraph 10);
a memory device coupled to the processor (paragraph 10); and
a computer readable storage device coupled to the processor (paragraph 12), wherein the storage device contains program code executable by the processor via the memory device to implement a method for processing an electronic communication, comprising:
arranging a plurality of end device identifiers into a first list and a second list, the first list including a plurality of target end point identifiers corresponding to a plurality of wireless electronic devices for communicating with a central computing device (see paragraph 79 which shows devices in either an include list or exclude list);
generating a filter list that includes a plurality of filters for all of the target end point identifiers; and transmitting electronic messages to the plurality of wireless electronic devices according to the filters (see paragraph 79 which shows devices on the include list according to the matching of identifier data and only sending data to the devices on the include list).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Hanchett et al. (US 2020/0195726).
Referring to Claim 9, Hanchett teaches an end device, comprising:
a radio-frequency (RF) receiver receiving an RF communication including a bit string that corresponds to a filter, the filter determining one or more intended targets of the RF communication, the RF communication including an identification of which one or more bits of the filter are relevant for determining whether the end device is an intended target (see paragraph 72 which shows the bit filter as a data mask which indicates whether or not the end device should accept the message);
memory configured to store an address of the end device (see ABSTRACT which shows information stored in a list and paragraph 146 which shows the information including the address); and
a processor configured to compare the one or more relevant bits of the filter with the address of the end device and to produce a response to the RF communication if each value of the one or more relevant bits of the filter match each value of corresponding bits of the address of the end device (see paragraphs 15 and 16 which show the device accepting or ignoring the sent data according to comparing data send with the message to data stored in memory and paragraph 72 which shows the data including bit data or data mask).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Patil in view of Hanchett.
Referring to Claim 8, Patil does not teach wherein a filter of the plurality of filters is sent to a group of wireless electronic devices of the plurality of wireless electronic devices, wherein each device in the group of wireless electronic device compares relevant bits of the filter to a device address to determine whether to process an electronic message received with the filter. Hanchett teaches wherein a filter of the plurality of filters is sent to a group of wireless electronic devices of the plurality of wireless electronic devices, wherein each device in the group of wireless electronic device compares relevant bits of the filter to a device address to determine whether to process an electronic message received with the filter (see ABSRTRACT which shows the end device receiving filter information from a server and paragraphs 15 and 16 which show the device accepting or ignoring the sent data according to comparing data send with the message to data stored in memory where paragraph 72 shows the data including bit data or data mask). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Hanchett to the device of Patil in order to more efficiently allocate proper data to the intended devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-5 are allowed.
Regarding Claim 1, Patil teaches a method for wireless communication, comprising:
arranging a plurality of end device identifiers into a first list and a second list, the first list including a plurality of target end device identifiers corresponding to a first group of wireless electronic devices for communicating with a central computing device (paragraph 79); and
broadcasting electronic messages including the filters of the filter list such that end device possessing an identifier from the first group receives and processes a message while no devices on the second accept any broadcast messages (paragraph 79).
Patil and Hanchett do not teach generating a filter list having a plurality of filters such that each target end device identifier on the first list matches with exactly one filter of the filter list, and no end device identifiers on the second list match with any filter of the filter list.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUGENE YUN whose telephone number is (571)272-7860. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm.
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 5712727867. 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.
/EUGENE YUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights