DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination (RCE) under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 02/18/2026 has been entered.
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
This Action is in response to RCE with amendments filed on 02/18/2026.
Claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10-16, 19 and 21 have been amended. Claim 4 remains cancelled.
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 13, and 21 are independent.
Claims 1-3 and 5-21 remain pending in this application.
Response to Arguments Regarding Claim Objections
In the final office Action mailed on 09/18/2025, claims 1, 3, 5-6, 8, 10-16 and 19 were objected to because of minor informalities. In the response filed on 02/18/2026, applicant amends the claims to obviate the objections. These amendments are acceptable, and as a result, the respective claim objections made in the final Office Action have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments Regarding Prior Art Rejections
The Applicant's amendment/ arguments, see page 6-8 of REMARKS, filed 02/18/2026, with respect to Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/ 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In the response filed on 02/18/2026, applicant puts forth in substance that:
“The cited prior art does not teach or suggest at least these claim limitations. The Office Action acknowledges that "Raghu does not explicitly disclose increase the first priority of the first activity to produce an updated priority responsive to a priority limit of a priority table, the priority limit separating protocol activities for network maintenance and protocol activities for protocol operations." Office Action Page 14. Thus, Raghu does not teach or suggest a processor coupled to the radio, the processor configured to: obtain a first protocol stack for a first communications protocol comprising a first activity having a first priority; obtain a second protocol stack for a second communications protocol comprising a second activity having a second priority; increase the first priority of the first activity to produce an updated priority responsive to a priority limit of a priority table, the priority limit separating protocol activities for network maintenance and protocol activities for protocol operations.
Fang also does not teach or suggest these claim limitations. Fang discloses that, with a special access category AC-BC dedicated to the beacon frame, the AP could set the AC-BC with higher priority than other management or data frames. See, e.g., Fang, Paragraphs [0128] and [0129]. Fang also discloses that the beacon frame will have higher priority over other types of frames during the medium contention so that the AP will wait a shorter period of time after sensing the medium idle and have a higher chance to acquire the transmission opportunity. See, e.g., Fang, Paragraph [0129]. Fang discloses giving beacon frame a high priority, and does not teach or suggest increasing the first priority of the first activity. Thus, Fang does not teach or suggest a processor coupled to the radio, the processor configured to: obtain a first protocol stack for a first communications protocol comprising a first activity having a first priority; obtain a second protocol stack for a second communications protocol comprising a second activity having a second priority; increase the first priority of the first activity to produce an updated priority responsive to a priority limit of a priority table, the priority limit separating protocol activities for network maintenance and protocol activities for protocol operations.
Accordingly, Raghu and Fang, taken alone or in combination, do not teach or suggest
each limitation of claims 1, 13, and 21. Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that claims 1, 13, and 21 are in condition for allowance.” (See page 6-8 of REMARKS, filed 02/18/2026).
Applicant argues that “Raghu does not teach or suggest a processor coupled to the radio, the processor configured to: obtain a first protocol stack for a first communications protocol comprising a first activity having a first priority; obtain a second protocol stack for a second communications protocol comprising a second activity having a second priority” because the Office Action acknowledges that "Raghu does not explicitly disclose increase the first priority of the first activity to produce an updated priority responsive to a priority limit of a priority table, the priority limit separating protocol activities for network maintenance and protocol activities for protocol operations."
Examiner disagrees to the applicant’s allegation, as pages 4-5 of the Final Rejection mailed on 09/18/2025 clearly cited Raghu as explicitly disclosing “a processor coupled to the radio, the processor configured to: obtain a first protocol stack for a first communications protocol comprising a first activity having a first priority; and obtain a second protocol stack for a second communications protocol comprising a second activity having a second priority”, as currently claimed. Examiner also notes that page 5 of the Final Rejection mailed on 09/18/2025 also cited Raghu as disclosing “increase the first priority of the first activity to produce an updated priority responsive to a priority table” (also see Raghu [0018]-[0019]; also see [0021]-[0023] in view of Table 1-4 on page 3, and Fig.3:318).
The Applicant’s above remarks do not provide any specific reasons as to why either the findings of fact or the legal conclusion that the claims are patent ineligible under 35 USC § 102/103 is allegedly in error. Applicant’s remarks are only generalizations not tied to the facts of the cases that amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how.
Applicant further argues, “Fang discloses giving beacon frame a high priority, and does not teach or suggest increasing the first priority of the first activity. Thus, Fang does not teach or suggest a processor coupled to the radio, the processor configured to: obtain a first protocol stack for a first communications protocol comprising a first activity having a first priority; obtain a second protocol stack for a second communications protocol comprising a second activity having a second priority; increase the first priority of the first activity to produce an updated priority responsive to a priority limit of a priority table, the priority limit separating protocol activities for network maintenance and protocol activities for protocol operations.”
However, as set forth above, the limitations “a processor coupled to the radio, the processor configured to: obtain a first protocol stack for a first communications protocol comprising a first activity having a first priority; obtain a second protocol stack for a second communications protocol comprising a second activity having a second priority; increase the first priority of the first activity to produce an updated priority responsive to a priority table” are already disclosed by the primary reference to Raghu. Fang is/was cited to teach the limitation “increase the first priority of the first activity to produce an updated priority responsive to a priority limit of a priority table, the priority limit separating protocol activities for network maintenance and protocol activities for protocol operations” (see pages 14-15 of Final Rejection mailed on 09/18/2025).
Applicant cites Fang’s paragraphs [0128]-[0129] to argue that Fang does not teach or suggest “increase the first priority of the first activity to produce an updated priority responsive to a priority limit of a priority table, the priority limit separating protocol activities for network maintenance and protocol activities for protocol operations”. However, applicant’s argument completely ignores paragraphs [0056], teachings of Table 1 on page 7, [0007], [0043], [0097]-[0101], and [0157] of Fang that were also cited in making an articulated rejection.
More specifically, Fang discloses an approach of defining a new access category for beacon transmission only, called AC-BC, shown in Table 1; With this special access category AC-BC dedicated to the beacon frame, the AP could set the AC-BC with higher priority than other management or data frames. Therefore, the beacon frame will have higher priority over other types of frames (see [0056]; the beacon frame is assigned a higher priority… other lower priority transmissions; also see [0128]-[0129] in view of Table 1 on page 7). Based on the teachings from at least the Abstract and specification paragraphs [0007], [0043], [0097]-[0101], and [0157], examiner articulated that ACK and DBNack based acknowledgement is prioritized over beacon frames. This suggests that the priority of the beacon frame increased to have higher priority over other types of frames, but not the ACK/NACK as shown in the access category Table 1 (“responsive to a priority limit of a priority table”). The examiner further articulated that since the management frames and control frames are associated with different access priorities, and since the beacon is assigned with higher priority than other management or data frames, this increase in priority level of AC-BC Access Categories separates control frames and beacons (“protocol activities for network maintenance”) from management or data frames (“protocol activities for protocol operation”). The Applicant’s above remarks do not provide any specific reasons as to why the examiner’s articulations above are allegedly in error. Applicant’s remarks are only generalizations not tied to the facts of the cases that amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how.
Applicant's further arguments for independent claims 13, and 21 appear to stem from the applicant's assertion that the combination of cited references fails to disclose the similarly recited limitations of claim 1. However, as set forth above, this assertion does not hold ground, and therefore, the current rejection of record for the independent claim persists.
Applicant's arguments for the dependent claims 2, 3, and 5-12 (see page 8 of REMARKS, filed 02/18/2026) appear to stem from the applicant's assertion that the combination of cited references fails to disclose all the limitations of respective independent claim 1. However, as set forth above, this assertion does not hold ground, and therefore, the current rejection of record for the dependent claims persist.
Applicant's arguments for the dependent claims 14-20 (see page 8 of REMARKS, filed 02/18/2026) appear to stem from the applicant's assertion that the combination of cited references fails to disclose all the limitations of respective independent claim 13. However, as set forth above, this assertion does not hold ground, and therefore, the current rejection of record for the dependent claims persist.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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) 1-2, 5-6, 8, 11-14 and 19-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandhalu Raghu et al. (hereinafter, Raghu, US 20190053259 A1) in view of Fang et al. (hereinafter, Fang, US 20180279209 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Raghu discloses a device (see [0005]; a wireless communication device; also see Fig.2:200 in view of [0013]) comprising:
a radio (see [0005]; a wireless communication device is provided that includes a radio; also see [0037]; embodiments provide concurrent execution of more than two protocols using a single radio); and
a processor (see Fig.2:202 and/or 204) coupled to the radio (see [0015]; The RF core 204 includes a processor… for executing software that, e.g., interfaces the analog RF and base-band circuitry; main CPU 202 to communicate with the RF core 204), the processor configured to:
obtain a first protocol stack (see Fig.3:308 “PROTOCOL STACK A”) for a first communications protocol comprising a first activity (see [0014]; The protocol software includes protocol stacks for the supported protocols, e.g., Thread, Zigbee, 6LoWPAN, Bluetooth 5, and/or proprietary protocols; also see [0015]; transmitting and receiving various radio protocols) having a first priority (see [0022]-[0023]; also see Table 1-4 on page 3; examiner articulates that Advertising Sleeping, Connecting or connected, TX, or ACK are plurality of protocol activities and that high/ low priority are assigned first/ second priority to each of a plurality of protocol activities for stacks 308/ 306);
obtain a second protocol stack (see Fig.3:306 “PROTOCOL STACK B”) for a second communications protocol comprising a second activity (see [0014]; The protocol software includes protocol stacks for the supported protocols, e.g., Thread, Zigbee, 6LoWPAN, Bluetooth 5, and/or proprietary protocols; also see [0015]; transmitting and receiving various radio protocols) having a second priority (see [0022]-[0023]; also see Table 1-4 on page 3; examiner articulates that Advertising Sleeping, Connecting or connected, TX, or ACK are plurality of protocol activities and that high/ low priority are assigned first/ second priority to each of a plurality of protocol activities for stacks 308/ 306);
increase the first priority of the first activity to produce an updated priority (see [0021]; a scheduling policy can be changed dynamically by submitting changes to the policy manager 318 via the DMM interface 312; also see [0018]-[0019]; also see [0021]-[0023] in view of Table 1-4 on page 3; Table 4 illustrates a default scheduling policy; default scheduling policies can be changed; examiner articulates that as shown in Table 4, default scheduling policy indicates that anonymous BLE protocol stack is initially (by default) assigned high priority, and that anonymous proprietary protocol stack is initially (by default) assigned low priority; examiner articulates that as shown in Table 1, after updating scheduling policy, proprietary protocol stack with TX and ACK is now assigned high priority) responsive to a priority table (see [0021]-[0022] in view of Fig.3:318; a table or other suitable data structure, stores the scheduling policies... a scheduling policy can specify the priority of radio commands from each protocol stack 306, 308);
select the first activity responsive to the updated priority and the second priority (see [0033]; original schedule 700 is empty and the low priority non-time critical radio command B1 is currently being executed by the radio driver 310. The radio command scheduler 314 receives the radio command A from the protocol stack A 308 and determines from the scheduling policy that radio commands received from the protocol stack A 308 currently have high priority);
determine a radio command corresponding to the first activity (see [0033]; The radio command scheduler 314 causes the radio driver 310 to abort execution of the low priority radio command B1 and places the new radio command A at the head of the radio command queue 320. Because B1 is not time critical, the radio command scheduler 314 reschedules B1 by appending B1 to the radio command queue 320, as shown in the new schedule 702);
assign a radio bandwidth of the radio to the radio command (see [0015]; MCU 200 also incorporates a radio frequency (RF) core 204 that implements a dual-band sub-1 GHz and 2.4 GHz RF transceiver compatible with multiple protocols including the Bluetooth 5 low energy protocol and the IEEE 802.15.4 protocol; The RF core 204 includes a processor for executing software that, e.g., interfaces the analog RF and base-band circuitry, handles data transmission to and from the main CPU 202, and assembles packets for transmission based on the particular protocol corresponding to the packets; also see [0017]; The DMM handles dynamic switching of the radio between radio commands issued by the protocol stacks based on scheduling policies and run-time stack states); and
transmit the radio bandwidth to the radio, wherein the radio is configured to perform the first activity during the radio bandwidth (see [0015]; The RF core 204 is designed to autonomously handle time critical aspects of transmitting and receiving various radio protocols...and from the main CPU 202, and assembles packets for transmission based on the particular protocol corresponding to the packets; also see [0012] in view of Fig.1:106 and [0037]; node 106 execute multiple protocols concurrently; node 106 communicate with the WSN concentrator node 102 in the sub-1 gigahertz (GHz) band using IEEE 802.15.4-2015 or a proprietary protocol... node 106 also communicates with a smart phone 108 in the 2.4 GHz band using a 2.4 GHz protocol such as BLE).
Although, and as set forth above, Raghu discloses increase the first priority of the first activity to produce an updated priority responsive to a priority table (see [0018]-[0019]; also see [0021]-[0023] in view of Table 1-4 on page 3 and Fig.3:318), Raghu does not explicitly disclose increase the first priority of the first activity to produce an updated priority responsive to a priority limit of a priority table, the priority limit separating protocol activities for network maintenance and protocol activities for protocol operations.
However, in an analogous art, Fang discloses increase the first priority of the first activity to produce an updated priority responsive to a priority limit of a priority table (see [0056]; the beacon frame is assigned a higher priority… other lower priority transmissions; also see [0128]-[0129] in view of Table 1 on page 7; this application discloses an approach of defining a new access category for beacon transmission only, called AC-BC, shown in Table 1; With this special access category AC-BC dedicated to the beacon frame, the AP could set the AC-BC with higher priority than other management or data frames. Therefore, the beacon frame will have higher priority over other types of frames; examiner articulates, based on the teachings from at least the Abstract and specification paragraphs [0007], [0043], [0097]-[0101], and [0157], that ACK and DBNack based acknowledgement is prioritized over beacon frames; this suggests that the priority of the beacon frame increased to have higher priority over other types of frames, but not the ACK/NACK as shown in the access category Table 1 (“responsive to a priority limit of a priority table”)), the priority limit separating protocol activities for network maintenance and protocol activities for protocol operations (see [0128]-[0129] in view of Table 1 on page 7; examiner articulates that since the management frames and control frames are associated with different access priorities, and since the beacon is assigned with higher priority than other management or data frames, this increase in priority level of AC-BC Access Categories separates control frames and beacons (“protocol activities for network maintenance”) from management or data frames (“protocol activities for protocol operation”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Fang with Raghu to increase the first priority of the first activity to produce an updated priority responsive to a priority limit of a priority table, the priority limit separating protocol activities for network maintenance and protocol activities for protocol operations.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the collision in beacon frame transmission (Fang: [0130]) and/or improving the transmission efficiency and reliability (Fang: Abstract).
Regarding claim 2, Raghu (modified by Fang) discloses the device of claim 1, as set forth above. Raghu further discloses wherein activities for network maintenance comprises a connection establishment activity, a transmit beacon activity, or a receive beacon activity (see [0022]-[0023]; also see Table 1-4 on page 3; examiner articulates that Connecting or connected corresponds to connection establishment network maintenance activity, TX corresponds to a transmit beacon, and ACK corresponds to receive beacon).
Regarding claim 5, Raghu (modified by Fang) discloses the device of claim 1, as set forth above. Raghu further discloses send, to the radio, data associated with the radio command (see [0015]; The RF core 204 is designed to autonomously handle time critical aspects of transmitting and receiving various radio protocols...and from the main CPU 202, and assembles packets for transmission based on the particular protocol corresponding to the packets; also see [0012] in view of Fig.1:106 and [0037]; node 106 execute multiple protocols concurrently; node 106 communicate with the WSN concentrator node 102 in the sub-1 gigahertz (GHz) band using IEEE 802.15.4-2015 or a proprietary protocol... node 106 also communicates with a smart phone 108 in the 2.4 GHz band using a 2.4 GHz protocol such as BLE).
Regarding claim 6, Raghu (modified by Fang) discloses the device of claim 5, as set forth above. Raghu further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to reject the second activity (see [0020]; reject the new radio command if the new radio command cannot be added to the queue 320 given the time parameters and the scheduling policy; also see [0028]- [0029]).
Regarding claim 8, Raghu (modified by Fang) discloses the device of claim 1, as set forth above. Raghu further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to store a radio command data structure (see Fig.3:318 in view of [0021]; A policies data structure 318, e.g., a table or other suitable data structure, stores the scheduling policies used by the scheduler 314), wherein the radio command data structure comprises a plurality of radio commands corresponding to a plurality of protocol activities, the plurality of protocol activities comprising the first activity and the second activity (see [0022]; a scheduling policy corresponding to the current protocol stack states can specify the priority of radio commands from each protocol stack 306, 308 and a timing constraint indicating whether or not radio commands from each protocol stack are time critical).
Regarding claim 11, Raghu (modified by Fang) discloses the device of claim 1, as set forth above. Fang further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to assign a priority to each of a plurality of protocol activities comprising the first activity and the second activity (see [0048]; The current 802.11 specification defines two types of signaling frames associated with different access priorities: management frames and control frames; also see [0128]-[0129] in view of Table 1 on page 7; this application discloses an approach of defining a new access category for beacon transmission only, called AC-BC, shown in Table 1; With this special access category AC-BC dedicated to the beacon frame, the AP could set the AC-BC with higher priority than other management or data frames. Therefore, the beacon frame will have higher priority over other types of frames; also see [0056]; the beacon frame is assigned a higher priority… other lower priority transmissions).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Fang with Raghu so that the processor is further configured to assign a priority to each of a plurality of protocol activities comprising the first activity and the second activity.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the collision in beacon frame transmission (Fang: [0130]) and/or improving the transmission efficiency and reliability (Fang: Abstract).
Regarding claim 12, Raghu (modified by Fang) discloses the device of claim 11, as set forth above. Raghu further discloses device further comprising a memory configured to store the priority table (see [0021]-[0022] in view of Fig.3:318; a table or other suitable data structure, stores the scheduling policies... a scheduling policy can specify the priority of radio commands from each protocol stack 306, 308).
Regarding claim 13, Raghu discloses a device (see [0005]; a wireless communication device; also see Fig.2:200 in view of [0013]) comprising:
a radio (see [0005]; a wireless communication device is provided that includes a radio; also see [0037]; embodiments provide concurrent execution of more than two protocols using a single radio); and
a processor (see Fig.2:202 and/or 204) coupled to the radio (see [0015]; The RF core 204 includes a processor… for executing software that, e.g., interfaces the analog RF and base-band circuitry; main CPU 202 to communicate with the RF core 204), the processor configured to:
receive a first protocol stack (see Fig.3:308 “PROTOCOL STACK A”) for a first communications protocol (see [0014]; The protocol software includes protocol stacks for the supported protocols, e.g., Thread, Zigbee, 6LoWPAN, Bluetooth 5, and/or proprietary protocols), the first protocol stack having a first activity (see [0015]; transmitting and receiving various radio protocols) having a first priority (see [0022]-[0023]; also see Table 1-4 on page 3; examiner articulates that Advertising Sleeping, Connecting or connected, TX, or ACK are protocol activities and that high/ low priority are assigned first/ second priority to each of a plurality of protocol activities for stacks 308/ 306);
receive a second protocol stack (see Fig.3:306 “PROTOCOL STACK B”) for a second communications protocol (see [0014]; The protocol software includes protocol stacks for the supported protocols, e.g., Thread, Zigbee, 6LoWPAN, Bluetooth 5, and/or proprietary protocols), the second protocol stack having a second activity (see [0014]; The protocol software includes protocol stacks for the supported protocols, e.g., Thread, Zigbee, 6LoWPAN, Bluetooth 5, and/or proprietary protocols; also see [0015]; transmitting and receiving various radio protocols) having a second priority (see [0022]-[0023]; also see Table 1-4 on page 3; examiner articulates that Advertising Sleeping, Connecting or connected, TX, or ACK are plurality of protocol activities and that high/ low priority are assigned first/ second priority to each of a plurality of protocol activities for stacks 308/ 306);
increase the first priority of the first activity to produce an updated priority (see [0021]; a scheduling policy can be changed dynamically by submitting changes to the policy manager 318 via the DMM interface 312; also see [0018]-[0019]; also see [0021]-[0023] in view of Table 1-4 on page 3; Table 4 illustrates a default scheduling policy; default scheduling policies can be changed; examiner articulates that as shown in Table 4, default scheduling policy indicates that anonymous BLE protocol stack is initially (by default) assigned high priority, and that anonymous proprietary protocol stack is initially (by default) assigned low priority; examiner articulates that as shown in Table 1, after updating scheduling policy, proprietary protocol stack with TX and ACK is now assigned high priority) based on a priority table (see [0021]-[0022] in view of Fig.3:318; a table or other suitable data structure, stores the scheduling policies... a scheduling policy can specify the priority of radio commands from each protocol stack 306, 308);
select the first activity based on the first priority, the second priority, and a priority table (see [0033]; original schedule 700 is empty and the low priority non-time critical radio command B1 is currently being executed by the radio driver 310. The radio command scheduler 314 receives the radio command A from the protocol stack A 308 and determines from the scheduling policy that radio commands received from the protocol stack A 308 currently have high priority; also see [0021]-[0022] in view of Fig.3:318; a table or other suitable data structure, stores the scheduling policies... a scheduling policy can specify the priority of radio commands from each protocol stack 306, 308);
determine a radio command corresponding to the first activity (see [0033]; The radio command scheduler 314 causes the radio driver 310 to abort execution of the low priority radio command B1 and places the new radio command A at the head of the radio command queue 320. Because B1 is not time critical, the radio command scheduler 314 reschedules B1 by appending B1 to the radio command queue 320, as shown in the new schedule 702);
assign a radio bandwidth of the radio to the radio command (see [0015]; MCU 200 also incorporates a radio frequency (RF) core 204 that implements a dual-band sub-1 GHz and 2.4 GHz RF transceiver compatible with multiple protocols including the Bluetooth 5 low energy protocol and the IEEE 802.15.4 protocol; The RF core 204 includes a processor for executing software that, e.g., interfaces the analog RF and base-band circuitry, handles data transmission to and from the main CPU 202, and assembles packets for transmission based on the particular protocol corresponding to the packets; also see [0017]; The DMM handles dynamic switching of the radio between radio commands issued by the protocol stacks based on scheduling policies and run-time stack states); and
transmit the radio bandwidth to the radio, wherein the radio is configured to perform the first activity during the radio bandwidth (see [0015]; The RF core 204 is designed to autonomously handle time critical aspects of transmitting and receiving various radio protocols...and from the main CPU 202, and assembles packets for transmission based on the particular protocol corresponding to the packets; also see [0012] in view of Fig.1:106 and [0037]; node 106 execute multiple protocols concurrently; node 106 communicate with the WSN concentrator node 102 in the sub-1 gigahertz (GHz) band using IEEE 802.15.4-2015 or a proprietary protocol... node 106 also communicates with a smart phone 108 in the 2.4 GHz band using a 2.4 GHz protocol such as BLE).
Although, and as set forth above, Raghu discloses increase the first priority of the first activity to produce an updated priority based on a priority table (see [0018]-[0019]; also see [0021]-[0023] in view of Table 1-4 on page 3 and Fig.3:318), Raghu does not explicitly disclose increase the first priority of the first activity to produce an updated priority based on a priority limit of a priority table, the priority limit separating protocol activities for network maintenance and protocol activities for protocol operations.
However, in an analogous art, Fang discloses increase the first priority of the first activity to produce an updated priority based on a priority limit of a priority table (see [0056]; the beacon frame is assigned a higher priority… other lower priority transmissions; also see [0128]-[0129] in view of Table 1 on page 7; this application discloses an approach of defining a new access category for beacon transmission only, called AC-BC, shown in Table 1; With this special access category AC-BC dedicated to the beacon frame, the AP could set the AC-BC with higher priority than other management or data frames. Therefore, the beacon frame will have higher priority over other types of frames; examiner articulates, based on the teachings from at least the Abstract and specification paragraphs [0007], [0043], [0097]-[0101], and [0157], that ACK and DBNack based acknowledgement is prioritized over beacon frames; this suggests that the priority of the beacon frame increased to have higher priority over other types of frames, but not the ACK/NACK as shown in the access category Table 1 (“responsive to a priority limit of a priority table”)), the priority limit separating protocol activities for network maintenance and protocol activities for protocol operations (see [0128]-[0129] in view of Table 1 on page 7; examiner articulates that since the management frames and control frames are associated with different access priorities, and since the beacon is assigned with higher priority than other management or data frames, this increase in priority level of AC-BC Access Categories separates control frames and beacons (“protocol activities for network maintenance”) from management or data frames (“protocol activities for protocol operation”)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Fang with Raghu to increase the first priority of the first activity to produce an updated priority based on a priority limit of a priority table, the priority limit separating protocol activities for network maintenance and protocol activities for protocol operations.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to reduce the collision in beacon frame transmission (Fang: [0130]) and/or improving the transmission efficiency and reliability (Fang: Abstract).
Regarding claim 14, Raghu (modified by Fang) discloses the device of claim 13, as set forth above. Raghu further discloses send, to the radio, data associated with the radio command (see [0015]; The RF core 204 is designed to autonomously handle time critical aspects of transmitting and receiving various radio protocols...and from the main CPU 202, and assembles packets for transmission based on the particular protocol corresponding to the packets; also see [0012] in view of Fig.1:106 and [0037]; node 106 execute multiple protocols concurrently; node 106 communicate with the WSN concentrator node 102 in the sub-1 gigahertz (GHz) band using IEEE 802.15.4-2015 or a proprietary protocol... node 106 also communicates with a smart phone 108 in the 2.4 GHz band using a 2.4 GHz protocol such as BLE).
Regarding claim 19, Raghu (modified by Fang) discloses the device of claim 13, as set forth above. Raghu further discloses device further comprising a memory configured to store the priority table (see [0021]-[0022] in view of Fig.3:318; a table or other suitable data structure, stores the scheduling policies... a scheduling policy can specify the priority of radio commands from each protocol stack 306, 308).
Regarding claim 20, Raghu (modified by Fang) discloses the device of claim 13, as set forth above. Raghu further discloses wherein activities for network maintenance comprises a connection establishment activity, a transmit beacon activity, or a receive beacon activity (see [0022]-[0023]; also see Table 1-4 on page 3; examiner articulates that Connecting or connected corresponds to connection establishment network maintenance activity, TX corresponds to a transmit beacon, and ACK corresponds to receive beacon).
As for Claim(s) 21, the claims list all the same elements of claim 1, but in a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing instructions (see Raghu [0005] and [0016]) form to carry out the steps, rather than the device form. Therefore, the supporting rationale of the rejection to claim 1 applies equally as well to claim 21.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandhalu Raghu et al. (hereinafter, Raghu, US 20190053259 A1) in view of Fang et al. (hereinafter, Fang, US 20180279209 A1) in view of Rinne et al. (hereinafter, Rinne, WO 2014191797 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Raghu (modified by Fang) discloses the device of claim 1, as set forth above. Raghu (modified by Fang) does not explicitly disclose wherein the first priority is an application priority weighting from a user definition.
Rinne discloses wherein the first priority is an application priority weighting from a user definition (see Fig.12; set of preferences; also see page 17: lines 5-25; WLAN selection priority would be updated to 7 (high importance) as indicated by the line extending from priority value 5 to priority value 7… The preference defines the relative importance of actively trying to get WLAN access relative to cellular access; also see page 2: lines 11-17; server stores the preferences set by the operator for the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rinne with Raghu and Fang so that the first priority is an application priority weighting from a user definition.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to permit the relative priority to be modified on a more granular basis in a dynamic and individualized manner (Rinne: in page 19 lines 5-10).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandhalu Raghu et al. (hereinafter, Raghu, US 20190053259 A1) in view of Fang et al. (hereinafter, Fang, US 20180279209 A1) in view of Rinne et al. (hereinafter, Rinne, WO 2014191797 A1) in view of Wall et al. (hereinafter, Wall, US 5506969 A).
Regarding claim 7, Raghu (modified by Fang) discloses the device of claim 1, as set forth above. Raghu (modified by Fang) does not explicitly disclose wherein the first priority is based on a first user definition, and wherein the priority table is based on a second user definition.
Rinne discloses wherein the first priority is based on a first user definition (see Fig.12; set of preferences; also see page 17: lines 5-25; WLAN selection priority would be updated to 7 (high importance) as indicated by the line extending from priority value 5 to priority value 7… The preference defines the relative importance of actively trying to get WLAN access relative to cellular access; also see page 2: lines 11-17; server stores the preferences set by the operator for the user).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Rinne with Raghu and Fang so that the first priority is based on a first user definition.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to permit the relative priority to be modified on a more granular basis in a dynamic and individualized manner (Rinne: in page 19 lines 5-10).
Raghu (modified by Fang and Rinne) does not explicitly disclose wherein the priority table is based on a second user definition.
Wall discloses wherein the priority table is based on a second user definition (see Col.7: lines 51-53; importance information provides user-defined priority for global priority).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Wall with Raghu, Fang and Rinne so that the priority table is based on a second user definition.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to be able to insert the request on the importance order list, based on the global priority of the request (in Wall: see Col.8: lines 12-18).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandhalu Raghu et al. (hereinafter, Raghu, US 20190053259 A1) in view of Fang et al. (hereinafter, Fang, US 20180279209 A1) in view of GOERGEN et al. (hereinafter, GOERGEN, WO 2012042426 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Raghu (modified by Fang) discloses the device of claim 1, as set forth above. Raghu (modified by Fang) does not explicitly disclose wherein the first priority is associated with a time window.
GOERGEN discloses wherein the first priority is associated with a time window (see page 17: lines 16-24; it may also be differentiated between time-critical and time- uncritical data packets. For instance, it may be determined before adding a data packet to the packet queue, whether it is a time-critical data packet. When it is a time-critical data packet, a predetermined value may be added to a priority counter, so that the time-critical packet can overtake some or all earlier time-uncritical data packets in the queue; examiner articulates that adding to a priority counter before adding a data packet to the packet queue suggests a time window to assign the first priority).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of GOERGEN with Raghu and Fang so the first priority is associated with a time window.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that the delay of time-critical data packets is reduced (GOERGEN: see page 17: line 24).
Claim(s) 10 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandhalu Raghu et al. (hereinafter, Raghu, US 20190053259 A1) in view of Fang et al. (hereinafter, Fang, US 20180279209 A1) in view of Subramanian et al. (hereinafter, Subramanian, US 20190158163 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Raghu (modified by Fang) discloses the device of claim 1, as set forth above. Raghu (modified by Fang) does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to receive a first request to schedule the first activity, the first request including data indicative of an end time, and a delay time, wherein the transmission comprises performing the transmission the delay time after the end time.
Subramanian disclose wherein the processor is further configured to receive a first request to schedule the first activity, the first request including data indicative of an end time, and a delay time, wherein the transmission comprises performing the transmission the delay time after the end time (see [0101]; receive a first control information transmission at a first time, the first control information transmission including a scheduling offset, an assignment for a first data transmission time interval (TTI) that starts at a second time corresponding to the first time plus the scheduling offset; also see [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Subramanian with Raghu and Fang so the processor is further configured to receive a first request to schedule the first activity, the first request including data indicative of an end time, and a delay time, wherein the transmission comprises performing the transmission the delay time after the end time.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve network efficiency through transmissions (Subramanian: see [0034]).
Regarding claim 15, Raghu (modified by Fang) discloses the device of claim 14, as set forth above. Raghu (modified by Fang) does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to receive a first request to schedule the first activity of a plurality of protocol activities, the first request including data indicative of an end time, and a delay time, wherein sending the data associated with the radio command comprises sending the data associated with the radio command the delay time after the end time.
Subramanian disclose wherein the processor is further configured to receive a first request to schedule the first activity of a plurality of protocol activities, the first request including data indicative of an end time, and a delay time, wherein sending the data associated with the radio command comprises sending the data associated with the radio command the delay time after the end time (see [0101]; receive a first control information transmission at a first time, the first control information transmission including a scheduling offset, an assignment for a first data transmission time interval (TTI) that starts at a second time corresponding to the first time plus the scheduling offset; also see [0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Subramanian with Raghu and Fang so that the processor is further configured to receive a first request to schedule the first activity of a plurality of protocol activities, the first request including data indicative of an end time, and a delay time, wherein sending the data associated with the radio command comprises sending the data associated with the radio command the delay time after the end time.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to improve network efficiency through transmissions (Subramanian: see [0034]).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandhalu Raghu et al. (hereinafter, Raghu, US 20190053259 A1) in view of Fang et al. (hereinafter, Fang, US 20180279209 A1) in view of SIPILAE et al. (hereinafter, SIPILAE, WO 2012143346 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Raghu (modified by Fang) discloses the device of claim 14, as set forth above. Raghu (modified by Fang) does not explicitly disclose wherein the processor is further configured to, responsive to determining that a data transfer command of the first protocol stack has the first priority during a first time window, add a weighting to the first activity during the first time window to increase a final priority of the data transfer command of the first protocol stack over the second protocol stack.
SIPILAE discloses wherein the processor is further configured to, responsive to determining that a data transfer command of the first protocol stack has the first priority during a first time window, add a weighting to the first activity during the first time window to increase a final priority of the data transfer command of the first protocol stack over the second protocol stack (see page 8: line 23 – page 10: line 8; radio network controller (RNC) changes the order of the IP data packets according to priority and/or adjusts the scheduling priority of the entire UTRAN radio bearer based on the marker in the header of the data packet; IP data packets of different priority can be prioritized e.g. by placing them into queues with different scheduling priority and/or weight before they are scheduled into the MAC protocol layer within the RNC; RNC may then also change or adjust the scheduling priority of the UTRAN radio bearer according to the priority mix of the IP data packets received recently or buffered currently; For example, a web-based application may be given higher priority than a peer-to-peer application within the UTRAN radio bearer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of SIPILAE with Raghu and Fang so that the processor is further configured to, responsive to determining that a data transfer command of the first protocol stack has the first priority during a first time window, add a weighting to the first activity during the first time window to increase a final priority of the data transfer command of the first protocol stack over the second protocol stack.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that several application data streams in the same radio bearer may be dynamically prioritized relative to each other (SIPILAE: see Page 9: lines 14-15).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandhalu Raghu et al. (hereinafter, Raghu, US 20190053259 A1) in view of Fang et al. (hereinafter, Fang, US 20180279209 A1) in view of Kadiyala (US 20180032585 A1) in view of SIPILAE et al. (hereinafter, SIPILAE, WO 2012143346 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Raghu (modified by Fang) discloses the device of claim 13, as set forth above. Raghu further discloses wherein the first priority is based on stack priority data and the priority table (see [0023]; also see Table 1-4 on page 3; “ACK” activity is assigned “Low priority, not time critical”; “Advertising” activity is assigned “Low priority, time critical” which is higher than that for “ACK”; “Connecting or connected” activity is assigned “High priority, time critical” which is higher than that for “Advertising”).
Raghu (modified by Fang) does not explicitly disclose wherein the first priority is based on the priority weighting, and protocol timing data.
Kadiyala teaches wherein the first priority is based on priority weighting and the priority table (see [0049]; a global table maintains priority information; also see [0124]; context parameter tables 634a-n may be prioritized (e.g., weighted). The table priority (e.g., weight) may be indicated by a global prioritization table... This prioritization (e.g., weighting) may be one factor amongst others (e.g., closeness of a match, etc.) in determining the final priority).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kadiyala with Raghu and Fang so that the first priority is based on priority weighting and the priority table.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to be able to determining a selection probability based on matching historical context information (in Kadiyala: see [0124] and [0007]).
Raghu (modified by Fang and Kadiyala) does not explicitly disclose wherein the first priority is based on protocol timing data.
SIPILAE discloses wherein the first priority is based on protocol timing data (see page 8: line 23 – page 10: line 8; radio network controller (RNC) changes the order of the IP data packets according to priority and/or adjusts the scheduling priority of the entire UTRAN radio bearer based on the marker in the header of the data packet; For example, a web-based application may be given higher priority than a P2P application within the UTRAN radio bearer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of SIPILAE with Raghu, Fang and Kadiyala so that the first priority is based on protocol timing data.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated so that several application data streams in the same radio bearer may be dynamically prioritized relative to each other (SIPILAE: see Page 9: lines 14-15).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kandhalu Raghu et al. (hereinafter, Raghu, US 20190053259 A1) in view of Fang et al. (hereinafter, Fang, US 20180279209 A1) in view of Kadiyala (US 20180032585 A1) in view of SIPILAE et al. (hereinafter, SIPILAE, WO 2012143346 A1) in view of Chew (US 20170177518 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Raghu (modified by Fang, Kadiyala and SIPILAE) discloses the device of claim 17, as set forth above. Raghu (modified by Fang, Kadiyala and SIPILAE) does not explicitly disclose wherein the protocol timing data includes an allowable delay.
However, Chew discloses wherein the protocol timing data includes an allowable delay (see [0162]; a higher priority may be granted to an MSI interrupt with a 50 millisecond maximum allowable delay as compared to an MSI interrupt with a 100 millisecond maximum allowable delay; Interrupt controller 1820 may subsequently queue the emulated MSI interrupt in an interrupt queue based on the determined priority).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chew with Raghu, Fang, Kadiyala and SIPILAE so that the protocol timing data includes an allowable delay.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to be able to assign a priority based on the maximum allowable delay value (Chew: see [0162]).
Additional References
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LI et al. (US 20150282057 A1) discloses determining whether a second SIM protocol stack currently holds a lower priority than the protocol stack associated with the first SIM.
LEE et al. (US 20220272688 A1) teaches a priority of the second protocol stack is a lower priority on the basis of a priority algorithm of each stack.
CHO (US 20230284258 A1) discloses identify allocation priorities of the radio resources of the first communication protocol stack and the second communication protocol stack based on the cause of requesting radio resources of the communication protocol stacks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SANDARVA KHANAL whose telephone number is (571)272-8107. The examiner can normally be reached MON-FRI, 0800-1700.
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, Kamal B Divecha can be reached at 571-272-5863. 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.
/SANDARVA KHANAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2453