CTNF 18/789,763 CTNF 69003 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Specification 06-31 AIA The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. The use of the terms BLUETOOTH, ZIGBEE, Z-WAVE, THREAD which are trade names or marks used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term. Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks. Drawings 06-36 AIA The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the computer readable medium must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation Under the broadest reasonable interpretation standard, the “ or” language, the condition would also not occur and the step or function claimed would never be realized, hence the claim does not require to perform the step or function. See Ex parte Katz, 2011 WL 514314, at 4-5 (BPAI Jan. 27, 2011, 2011 WL 1211248 at 2 (BPAI Mar. 25, 2011); see also In re Johnston, 435 f.3d 1381, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2006)( " optional elements do not narrow the claim because they can always be omitted ”). “Or” conditions are not limitations against which prior art must be found. Under the broadest scenario, the steps or functions dependent on the “or” condition would not be invoked, and such, the Examiner is not required to find these limitations in the prior art in order to render the claim anticipated. In re Am. Acad. Of Sci. Tech Ctr., 367 f.3d 1359, 1359 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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 20 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 The subject matter of the claim MUST be directed to one of the four subject matter categories . If it is not, the claim is not eligible for patent protection and should be rejected under § 101, for at least this reason. A summary of the four categories of invention, as they have been defined by the courts, are: i. Process – an act, or a series of acts or steps that are tied to a particular machine or apparatus or transform a particular article into a different state or thing. ii. Machine – a concrete thing, consisting of parts, or of certain devices and combination of devices. This includes every mechanical device or combination of mechanical powers and devices to perform some function and produce a certain effect or result. iii. Manufacture – an article produced from raw or prepared materials by giving to these materials’ new forms, qualities, properties, or combinations, whether by hand-labor or by machinery. iv. Composition of matter – all compositions of two or more substances and all composite articles, whether they be the results of chemical union, or of mechanical mixture, or whether they be gases, fluids, powders or solids, for example. Non-limiting examples of claims that are not directed to one of the statutory categories: i. Transitory forms of signal transmission (for example, a propagating electrical or electromagnetic signal per se ). ii. A naturally occurring organism iii. A human per se. iv. A legal contractual agreement between two parties v. A game defined as a set of rules. vi. A computer program per se. vii. A company. A claim that covers BOTH statutory and non-statutory embodiments (under the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim when read in light of the specification and in view of one skilled in the art) embraces subject matter that is not eligible for patent protection and therefore is directed to non-statutory subject matter . Such claims fail the first step and should be rejected under § 101, for at least this reason. For example, a claim to a computer readable medium that can be a compact disc or a carrier wave covers a non-statutory embodiment and therefore must be rejected under § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter. Also claiming something “ physical” or “ tangible” does not make statutory since ineligible signals were physical and tangible (See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346,1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007). The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zletz 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir.1989) (during patent examination the pending claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter See in re Nuijtn.. 500 F.3d 1346, 1356.57 (Fed. Cir 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter) and Interim Examination Instructions for Evaluating Subject Matter Eligibility Under 35 U.S.c. , 101. Aug. 24. 2009. p. 2. The USPTO recognizes that applicants may have claims directed to computer readable media that cover signals per se, which the Examiner must reject under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering both non-statutory subject matter and statutory subject matter. In an effort to assist the patent community in overcoming a rejection or potential rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in this situation, the USPTO suggests the following approach. A claim draw to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments to avoid a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 by adding the limitation ‘non-transitory” to the claim. Cf. Animal — Patentability, 1077 Off Ga. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) suggesting that applicants add the limitation “non-human” to a claim covering a multi-cellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 U S.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relics on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se. The limited situations in which such an amendment could raise issues of new matter occur, for example, when the specification does not support a non-transitory embodiment because a signal per se is the only viable embodiment such that the amended claim is impermissibly broadened beyond the supporting disclosure. See. cg.. Gentry Gaqllery Inc. v Berkline Corp.. 134 F.3d 1473 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claims 12 and 14-19 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. Regarding claim 12, The use of “protocols ”, protocols and standards change over time, hence, it is inappropriate to have the scope of a claim change with time. Since organizations implementing standards meet regularly and have the authority to modify standards, any connection a claim may have to these standards may varying scope over time. The other aspect arising from this is enablement. If the standard changes, the disclosure may no longer support the limitation. If the scope of the invention sought to be patented cannot be determined from the language of the claims, a second paragraph rejection is appropriate ( In re Wiggins , 179 USPQ 421. Regarding claim 14, the term “ step ” invokes a method. A patent claim that claims both an " apparatus" and a " method " is essentially describing a device or system along with the specific steps or process used to operate it, effectively covering both the physical structure of the invention and the functional steps involved in using it. This is done by including separate claims, one defining the apparatus components and another outlining the method steps for utilizing those components. A patent claim that claims both an apparatus and the method of using that apparatus is considered a "mixed apparatus and method claim," as seen as indefinite, meaning it's unclear exactly what is being claimed and could lead to legal issues regarding infringement. The courts have held a claim term indefinite for mixing an apparatus and a method. Wireless IP Holdings, L.P., v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al. No. 2:18-CV-28-JRG, (E.D. Texas, Jan. 29, 2019). A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. See In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litigation, 639 F.3d 1303, 1318, 97 USPQ2d 1737, 1748-49 (Fed. Cir. 2011); IPXL Holdings v. Amazon.com, Inc., 430 F.3d 1377, 1384, 77 USPQ2d 1140, 1145 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Ex parte Lyell, 17 USPQ2d 1548 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1990). Also, “ A claim which describes the most crucial element in a ‘new’ combination in terms of what it will do, rather than in terms of its own physical characteristics or its arrangement in the new combination, is invalid as a violation of [the indefiniteness requirement].” Halliburton v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1 (1946). A purely functional claim language is not allowable unless done within the scope of 112(f). This general prohibition against the use of “ purely functional claim language ” (and the more specific Halliburton rule) has not been completely eliminated. Rather, “purely functional claim language” is now permissible but only under the conditions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), i.e., if its scope is limited to the corresponding structure, material, or act disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof. Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (B.P.A.I. 2008). Priority 02-26 AIA Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. Allowable Subject Matter 12-151-07 AIA 07-97 12-51-07 Claim s 1-11 and 13 are allowed. 07-43-03 AIA As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a). 07-43-01 AIA Claim s 14-19 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action. 13-03-01 AIA The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: United States Patent Application Publication 2007/0118285 discloses a method of determining a physical location of a plurality of nodes in a wireless network. The method comprising i) operating a first node of the plurality of nodes in a scanning mode to detect a second node of the plurality of nodes operating in an advertising mode within range of the first node, ii) repeating step i) for other nodes of the plurality of nodes to determine a list of node pairs that are within range of each other for each of the plurality of nodes in the wireless network, iii) transmitting the list of node pairs from each of the plurality of nodes in the wireless network to a controlling node. WO 2019/040059 shows the access point controller to establish a collaborative access point set representing the plurality of access points that are to participate in collaborative beamforming. The collaborative beamforming null data packet message instructs respective ones of the plurality of access points to sequentially transmit channel sounding messages, and request the plurality of beamforming reports in response to the channel sounding messages. United States Patent Application Publication 2023/0020106 teaches the base station may store the received list of pairs, for example in a volatile memory of the base station logic. In case of a communication in error, for example due to a degraded communication using the configured directionality and polarization, the base station may select the second best pair from the list received from the user equipment and may configure the antenna arrangement such that payload communication with the user equipment is performed using the directionality and polarization associated to the downlink signal identified by the identifier of the second best pair. Thus, the reconfiguration of the antenna arrangement may be performed without additional channel sounding, such that communication reliability may be increased. However, the above described sounding procedure may be repeated in regular intervals or triggered upon degraded signal transmissions such that the list of pairs may be updated. The prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious instructing by the controlling node each of the node pairs to perform a channel sounding operation to determine a physical distance between the node pair and constructing by the controlling node a location map of the plurality of nodes in the wireless network based on the physical distance between each node pair. In combination with in a method of determining a physical location of a plurality of nodes in a wireless network. The method comprising i) operating a first node of the plurality of nodes in a scanning mode to detect a second node of the plurality of nodes operating in an advertising mode within range of the first node, ii) repeating step i) for other nodes of the plurality of nodes to determine a list of node pairs that are within range of each other for each of the plurality of nodes in the wireless network, iii) transmitting the list of node pairs from each of the plurality of nodes in the wireless network to a controlling node . Conclusion If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request " form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm. 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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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. WILLIAM D. CUMMING Primary Examiner Art Unit 2645 /WILLIAM D CUMMING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645 Application/Control Number: 18/789,763 Page 2 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/789,763 Page 4 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/789,763 Page 5 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/789,763 Page 6 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/789,763 Page 7 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/789,763 Page 8 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/789,763 Page 9 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/789,763 Page 10 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/789,763 Page 11 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/789,763 Page 12 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/789,763 Page 13 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/789,763 Page 14 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION Application/Control Number: 18/789,763 Page 15 Art Unit: 2645 NON-FINAL REJECTION
Prosecution Insights