DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Cross Reference to Related Applications
2. The current application claims priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application No. 63/536,031, filed on August 31, 2023, the content of which is incorporated by reference.
Claims status
3. This office action is a response to an application filed on August 14, 2024 in which claims 1-20 are pending for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The Examiner has considered the reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statements submitted on August 14, 2024 and December 19, 2025.
Drawings
5. The Examiner contends that the drawings submitted on August 14, 2024 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Claim Objections (minor informalities)
6. Claims 1, 3, 18 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regrading claims 1, 3, 18 and 20, the claims recite “…about a second session…” and “…about the second session…”. The term “about” is not a positive recitation. The specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The term may raise a question as to the limiting effect of the language in a claim. Further clarification is requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 of this title, 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.
8. Claims 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2019/0335482 A1), hereinafter “Yang” in view of Hirsch et al. (US 2017/0325199 A1), hereinafter “Hirsch” in view of Knode et al. (US 2022/0014041 A1), hereinafter “Knode”.
Regarding claim 1, Yang discloses a method (Figs. 3-4, 7, operation of a priority-based radio arbiter) comprising:
determining, based on information (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0031]-[0032], [0035]-[0036], operation of priority-based radio arbiter) about a second session (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0031]-[0032], [0035]-[0036], ZigBee session) using a second communications protocol (Fig. 3, paragraphs [0031]-[0032], [0035]-[0036], ZigBee protocol), a first time window (Fig.3, paragraphs [0031]-[0032], [0035]-[0036], 1st transmission of Bluetooth to start transmission of ZigBee) and a second time window (Fig.3, paragraphs [0031]-[0032], [0035]-[0036], start transmission of ZigBee to end transmission of ZigBee);
determining to perform a first session (Fig.3, paragraph [0036], Bluetooth session) using the first communications protocol (Fig.3, paragraph [0036], Bluetooth protocol) in the first time window (Fig.3, paragraph [0036], 1st transmission of Bluetooth to start transmission of ZigBee);
performing a first arbitration (Fig.3, paragraphs [0036], [0058], radio arbiter operation) between the first session (Fig.3, paragraphs [0036], [0058], Bluetooth session) and the second session (Fig.3, paragraphs [0036], [0058], ZigBee session);
determining, based on the first arbitration (Fig.3, paragraphs [0036], [0058], radio arbiter operation), that the first session has a priority (Fig.3, paragraphs [0036], [0058], with predicted transmitter collision) over the second session (Fig.3, paragraphs [0036], [0058], ZigBee session) in the second time window (paragraphs [0036], [0058], start transmission of ZigBee to end transmission of ZigBee).
While Yang implicitly refers to “performing a second arbitration between the first session and a third session using a third communications protocol; and determining, based on the second arbitration, whether to perform the first session in the second time window” (Figs. 3-4, 7, operation of a priority-based radio arbiter), Hirsch from the same or similar field of endeavor explicitly discloses performing a second arbitration (Figs. 2, 3A-3B, paragraphs [0042], [0044], [0045]-[0046], control and/or arbitrate wireless activity from a plurality of wireless radios) between the first session (Figs. 2, 3A-3B, paragraphs [0042], [0044], [0045]-[0046], Bluetooth session) and a third session (Figs. 2, 3A-3B, paragraphs [0042], [0044], [0045]-[0046], Wi-Fi session) using a third communications protocol (Figs. 2, 3A-3B, paragraphs [0042], [0044], [0045]-[0046], Wi-Fi protocol); and
determining, based on the second arbitration (Figs. 2, 3A-3B, paragraphs [0047], [0049], Table 3, control and/or arbitrate wireless activity from a plurality of wireless radios), whether to perform the first session in the second time window (Table 3, paragraphs [0047], [0049], activity of the Bluetooth and WPAN radios take priority over transmit activity of the Wi-Fi radio).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “performing a second arbitration between the first session and a third session using a third communications protocol; and determining, based on the second arbitration, whether to perform the first session in the second time window” as taught by Hirsch, in the system of Yang, so that it would provide interconnectivity to a broad spectrum of devices and objects desirable to control or arbitrate wireless communications between the different wireless technologies to prevent or mitigate signal interference (Hirsch, paragraph [0004]).
While Yang in view of Hirsch implicitly refer to “attaching a user device to a wireless network via a router of a first communications protocol”, Knode from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses attaching a user device (Figs. 1A, 2A, paragraphs [0044], [0053]-[0054], [0083], [0092], mobile device 190) to a wireless network (Figs. 1A, 2A, paragraphs [0044], [0053]-[0054], [0083], [0092], wireless network 100/200) via a router (Figs. 1A, 2A, paragraphs [0044], [0053]-[0054], [0083], [0092], leader device 210 (system controller 110)) of a first communications protocol (Figs. 1A, 2A, paragraphs [0044], [0053]-[0054], [0083], [0092], Bluetooth and/or Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) protocol).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “attaching a user device to a wireless network via a router of a first communications protocol” as taught by Knode, in the combined system of Yang and Hirsch, so that it would provide reliable RF communications as the number of load control device that periodically transition from an on state to an off state increases (Knode, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 3, Yang discloses the user device is not configured with coordinated sampled listening (CSL), and wherein determining the first time window and the second time window comprises: obtaining the information about the second session from a wireless manager; and determining the first time window and the second time window using firmware of the first communications protocol (Figs. 3-4, paragraphs [0026], [0031]-[0032], [0035]-[0036], link controllers having similar interfaces with the corresponding firmware stacks).
Regarding claim 4, Yang discloses determining to perform the first session in the first time window comprises at least one of: determining that the user device is configured with coordinated sampled listening (CSL), determining that the third session operates on a first frequency band, or determining that the first session has a higher priority than the second session in the first time window (Figs. 3-4, paragraph [0036], priority of BLE communication).
Regarding claim 5, Yang in view of Hirsch and Knode disclose the method according to claim 1.
Hirsch further discloses determining whether to perform the first session in the second time window comprises: determining a criticality level of the third session; and in response to determining that the third session is critical, determining not to perform the first session in the second time window (Fig. 2, Table 3, paragraphs [0047], [0049], each coexistence interface 300A and 300B may generate control signals (WF_Deny, BT_Deny, and WP_Deny) based on the activity indication signals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “determining whether to perform the first session in the second time window comprises: determining a criticality level of the third session; and in response to determining that the third session is critical, determining not to perform the first session in the second time window” as taught by Hirsch, in the combined system of Yang and Knode, so that it would provide interconnectivity to a broad spectrum of devices and objects desirable to control or arbitrate wireless communications between the different wireless technologies to prevent or mitigate signal interference (Hirsch, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 6, Yang in view of Hirsch and Knode disclose the method according to claim 5.
Hirsch further discloses determining whether to perform the first session in the second time window further comprises: in response to determining that the third session is not critical, determining a criticality level of the first session; and performing at least one of: in response to determining that the third session is not critical and the first session is not critical, determining not to perform the first session in the second time window; and in response to determining that the third session is not critical and the first session is critical, determining to perform the first session in the second time window (Fig. 2, Table 3, paragraphs [0047], [0049], each coexistence interface 300A and 300B may generate control signals (WF_Deny, BT_Deny, and WP_Deny) based on the activity indication signals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “determining whether to perform the first session in the second time window further comprises: in response to determining that the third session is not critical, determining a criticality level of the first session; and performing at least one of: in response to determining that the third session is not critical and the first session is not critical, determining not to perform the first session in the second time window; and in response to determining that the third session is not critical and the first session is critical, determining to perform the first session in the second time window” as taught by Hirsch, in the combined system of Yang and Knode, so that it would provide interconnectivity to a broad spectrum of devices and objects desirable to control or arbitrate wireless communications between the different wireless technologies to prevent or mitigate signal interference (Hirsch, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 7, Yang in view of Hirsch and Knode disclose the method according to claim 6.
Hirsch further discloses determining the criticality level of the first session comprises determining an identifier of the first session (Figs. 2, 3A-3B, paragraphs [0042], [0044]-[0046], assertion of BT active signals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “determining the criticality level of the first session comprises determining an identifier of the first session” as taught by Hirsch, in the combined system of Yang and Knode, so that it would provide interconnectivity to a broad spectrum of devices and objects desirable to control or arbitrate wireless communications between the different wireless technologies to prevent or mitigate signal interference (Hirsch, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 11, Yang in view of Hirsch and Knode disclose the method according to claim 1.
Hirsch further discloses the router supports the first communications protocol and the third communications protocol (Fig.2, paragraph [0033], the wireless hub 200 may provide access to a wireless network (e.g., wireless network 120), and may communicate with a plurality of client devices using various wireless protocols, such as Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, WPAN, and/or other wireless protocols (e.g., such as defined by the IEEE 802.15.4 specification); the wireless hub 200 includes a Wi-Fi radio 210, a Bluetooth (BT) radio 220, a WPAN radio 230, and a coexistence interface 240).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the router supports the first communications protocol and the third communications protocol” as taught by Hirsch, in the combined system of Yang and Knode, so that it would provide interconnectivity to a broad spectrum of devices and objects desirable to control or arbitrate wireless communications between the different wireless technologies to prevent or mitigate signal interference (Hirsch, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 12, Yang in view of Hirsch and Knode disclose the method according to claim 1.
Knode further discloses the router is coupled to a synchronized sleepy end device (Figs.1A, 2A, paragraphs [0084], [0092], leader devices (e.g., the leader device 210) and router devices (e.g., the router devices 220 a-220 d) that are attached to one or more end devices (e.g., the end devices 230 a, 230 b, the router eligible end device 240, and/or the sleepy-end device 250) may operate as parent devices).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the router is coupled to a synchronized sleepy end device” as taught by Knode, in the combined system of Yang and Hirsch, so that it would provide reliable RF communications as the number of load control device that periodically transition from an on state to an off state increases (Knode, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 13, Yang in view of Hirsch and Knode disclose the method according to claim 1.
Knode further discloses the user device is attached to the wireless network indirectly via the router (Figs. 1A, 2A, paragraphs [0044], [0083], system controller configured to communicate via the network with one or more computing devices, e.g., a mobile device , such as, a personal computing device and/or a wearable wireless device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the user device is attached to the wireless network indirectly via the router” as taught by Knode, in the combined system of Yang and Hirsch, so that it would provide reliable RF communications as the number of load control device that periodically transition from an on state to an off state increases (Knode, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 15, Yang discloses the first communications protocol comprises an Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.15.4 standard (paragraph [0023], RF topology according to IEEE 802.15.4).
Regarding claim 16, Yang discloses the second communications protocol comprises a BLUETOOTH standard (paragraph [0023], examples of such include ZigBee, ISA100.11a, WirelessHART, WiWi, SNAP, and Thread specifications; the second RF topology may be configured according to another low-power, low-rate wireless personal area network, such as Bluetooth (e.g., Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE)), ANT, ANT+, etc.; additional embodiments may also include WiFi topologies).
Regarding claim 17, Yang in view of Hirsch and Knode disclose the method according to claim 5.
Hirsch further discloses determining the third communications protocol comprises a WI-FI standard (Fig. 2, Table 3, paragraph [0033], communications protocol comprises a WI-FI standard).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the third communications protocol comprises a WI-FI standard” as taught by Hirsch, in the combined system of Yang and Knode, so that it would provide interconnectivity to a broad spectrum of devices and objects desirable to control or arbitrate wireless communications between the different wireless technologies to prevent or mitigate signal interference (Hirsch, paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 18, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 19, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claims 4 and 5.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is rejected based on the same reasoning as presented in the rejection of claim 1.
9. Claims 2 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2019/0335482 A1), hereinafter “Yang” in view of Hirsch et al. (US 2017/0325199 A1), hereinafter “Hirsch” in view of Knode et al. (US 2022/0014041 A1), hereinafter “Knode” in view of Mahasenan et al. (US 2023/0262574 A1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated December 19, 2024), hereinafter “Mahasenan”.
Regarding claim 2, Yang in view of Hirsch and Knode disclose the method according to claim 1.
Neither Yang, Hirsch nor Knode explicitly discloses “the user device is configured with coordinated sampled listening (CSL), and wherein the method further comprises controlling a CSL timer according to the time window and the second time window”.
However, Mahasenan from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the user device is configured with coordinated sampled listening (CSL), and wherein the method further comprises controlling a CSL timer according to the time window and the second time window (Figs. 4, 7, paragraphs [0057], [0060]-[0061], [0072], coordinated sampled listening (CSL), CSL IE-T1, CSL IE-T2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the user device is configured with coordinated sampled listening (CSL), and wherein the method further comprises controlling a CSL timer according to the time window and the second time window” as taught by Mahasenan, in the combined system of Yang, Hirsch and Knode, so that it would provide device-to-device communication using various communication protocols directed to changing a role of an end device to temporarily act as a router for a particular target end device (Mahasenan, paragraph [0001]).
Regarding claim 14, Yang in view of Hirsch and Knode disclose the method according to claim 1.
While Yang in view of Hirsch and Knode implicitly refer to “the wireless network comprises one or more sleepy end devices that support the first communications protocol”, Mahasenan from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses the wireless network comprises one or more sleepy end devices that support the first communications protocol (Figs. 4, 5, 6, paragraph [0047], electronic device 72 and the peripheral device 74 may include end devices, such as sleepy end devices (SEDs) according to the Thread® specification).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the wireless network comprises one or more sleepy end devices that support the first communications protocol” as taught by Mahasenan, in the combined system of Yang, Hirsch and Knode, so that it would provide device-to-device communication using various communication protocols directed to changing a role of an end device to temporarily act as a router for a particular target end device (Mahasenan, paragraph [0001]).
10. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2019/0335482 A1), hereinafter “Yang” in view of Hirsch et al. (US 2017/0325199 A1), hereinafter “Hirsch” in view of Knode et al. (US 2022/0014041 A1), hereinafter “Knode” in view of Sannala (US 2020/0128212 A1), hereinafter “Sannala”.
Regarding claim 8, Yang in view of Hirsch and Knode disclose the method according to claim 1.
Neither Yang, Hirsch nor Knode explicitly discloses “sending, from firmware of the first session to firmware of the third session, a request to perform the first session in the second time window”.
However, Sannala from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses sending, from firmware of the first session to firmware of the third session, a request to perform the first session in the second time window (Fig. 15A, paragraph [0235], when the RADIO_PRI (i.e., request for transmission priority) and RADIO_REQ (e.g., request for transmission) control lines 1500-1 and 1500-2 are asserted by the radios 940, the radio 950 yield to transmission requests by the radios 940 by suspending its own transmissions while the radios 940 transmit/receive data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “sending, from firmware of the first session to firmware of the third session, a request to perform the first session in the second time window” as taught by Sannala, in the combined system of Yang, Hirsch and Knode, so that it would provide managing coexistence of multiple transceiver devices as a consequence of the close physical spacing of components within smart devices, combined with close proximity to nearby conductive materials and the fact that devices often share the same or close frequency bands in operation (Sannala, paragraph [0004]).
11. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2019/0335482 A1), hereinafter “Yang” in view of Hirsch et al. (US 2017/0325199 A1), hereinafter “Hirsch” in view of Knode et al. (US 2022/0014041 A1), hereinafter “Knode” in view of Kondareddy et al. (US 10,372,190 B1; as submitted by the applicant with IDS dated December 19, 2024), hereinafter “Kondareddy”.
Regarding claim 9, Yang in view of Hirsch and Knode disclose the method according to claim 1.
Neither Yang, Hirsch nor Knode explicitly discloses “sending, from firmware of the third session to an access point of the third session, an indication of power reduction to occur in the first time window”.
However, Kondareddy from the same or similar field of endeavor discloses sending, from firmware of the third session to an access point of the third session, an indication of power reduction to occur in the first time window (Fig. 5, column 2, line 61-67, column 3, line 102, column 8, line 10-23, when the first communication subsystem is to transition to operating in a mode comprising a lower power consumption, second arbitration logic running on the second communication subsystem can take over to arbitrate for communications by the second communication subsystem and a third communication subsystem).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to provide “sending, from firmware of the third session to an access point of the third session, an indication of power reduction to occur in the first time window” as taught by Kondareddy, in the combined system of Yang, Hirsch and Knode, so that it would provide arbitrating communications by collocated communication to improve performance by managing radio's access to transmission media (Kondareddy, column 1, line 34-37).
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claim 10 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable contingent upon or subject to the following conditions: (1) that the claims are rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims as presented by applicant and referenced herein, (2) that the subject limitation(s) are not taken alone but in view of the entirety of the claim language including any preceding claim limitation, any proceeding claim limitations, and any intervening claim limitations, (3) that all independent claims were amended with similar features and the amendments were submitted in a formal response, and (4) that after clarifying the issues related with the objection under minor informality as stated above.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 10, contingent upon or subject to the conditions noted herein above, the prior art of record fails to disclose, alone, individually or in any reasonable combination, as required by the dependent claim(s): “before the attaching, performing a third arbitration between a fourth session using the first communications protocol and a fifth session using the second communications protocol; in response to determining that the fourth session has a priority over the fifth session, performing the fourth session; and in response to determining that the fifth session has a priority over the fourth session, performing the fifth session”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SITHU KO whose telephone number is 571-272-8647. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Friday 8:30am-5:00pmEST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edan Orgad can be reached on 571-272-7884. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SITHU KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights