DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs), submitted on 22 August 2024 and 07 February 2025, were filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 22 August 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 22 August 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Specification
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.
Claim Objections
Claims 2-14 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “A first device”. Here, the recitation, “A first device”, is not supported by antecedent basis. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests to amend from “A first device” to “The first device” in the preamble of each claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “A system”. Here, the recitation, “A system”, is not supported by antecedent basis. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests to amend from “A system” to “The system” in the preamble of the claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “A method”. Here, the recitation, “A method”, is not supported by antecedent basis. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests to amend from “A method” to “The method” in the preamble of each claim. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3, 13-18, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemets et al. (US 20180234494 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Klemets”) in view of Vandwalle et al. (US 20130132501 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Vandwalle”) in further view of Qi et al. (US 20210153273 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Qi”).
Regarding Claim 1, Klemets discloses a first device comprising
at least one processor (¶39 & Fig. 2, Klemets discloses a computing device comprising a processor 212); and
at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the apparatus to (¶39 & Fig. 2, Klemets discloses the computing device further comprising a memory 220 storing instructions, when executed by the processor 212, causes the computing device to perform steps) perform:
wherein each of the peer devices has one of a plurality of states (¶54 & Fig. 4, Klemets discloses that each device has a low-power state, a higher-power state, a discovery state, and a peer-to-peer data transfer state),
wherein said plurality of states comprise
an activation state in which the respective device is configured to transmit an activation signal for activating a second device (¶54 & Fig. 4, Klemets discloses an operational state corresponding to either the transmitting device or the receiving device where either device is configured to transmit a magic packet to activate a peer device),
a reading state in which the respective device is configured to detect a transmission from said second device in response to said activation signal (¶54 & Fig. 4, Klemets discloses a peer-to-peer data transfer state where either the transmitting device or the receiving device is configured to transmit and receive data with the peer device in response to reception of the magic packet),
an activation eligible state in which the respective device is available to be promoted to the activation state (¶54 & Fig. 4, Klemets discloses that a low power state of each device where the device is eligible or available to be promoted from the low power state to a higher power state), and
a reading eligible state in which the respective device is available to be promoted to the reading state (¶54 & Fig. 4, Klemets discloses a peer-to-peer data transfer state where either the transmitting device or the receiving device is configured to transmit and receive data with the peer device in response to reception of the magic packet);
setting the state of the first device to the configured state in response to reception of configuration information from said control unit (¶54 & Fig. 4 (440->454 OR 480 OR 490), Klemets discloses setting a state of the transmitting device and a state of the receiving device in response to reception of a beacon frame from an access point);
monitoring one or more triggers (¶54 & Fig. 4 (452 OR 462 OR 480), Klemets discloses monitoring to receive, by the receiving device from the transmitting device, any one of the magic packet, the remote launch command, or the connection request. Here each signaling type causes a different state, thus each signaling is correlated to “one or more triggers”); [and]
controlling a change in the state of the first device in response to activation of one or more monitored triggers (¶54 & Fig. 4 (452 OR 462 OR 480), Klemets discloses controlling a current state of the receiving device in response to reception of any one of the magic packet, the remote launch command, or the connection request).
However, Klemets does not disclose receiving configuration information from a control unit, wherein the configuration information comprises a configured state of the first device and a duration for serving as one of a plurality of peer devices.
Vandwalle, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches receiving configuration information from a control unit (¶46-47 & ¶97 & Fig. 3 (304), Vandwalle discloses receiving periodic synchronization data (PSF) from a master device where the PSF includes synchronization data), wherein the configuration information comprises a configured state of the first device (¶56, Vandwalle discloses that the receiving device may act as a peer and communicate with other peer devices in response to reception of the PSF) and a duration for serving as one of a plurality of peer devices (¶55-56, Vandwalle discloses that the synchronization data of the PSF indicates a duration in which the receiving device of the PSF may act as a peer and communicate with peer devices).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Klemets by receiving configuration information from a control unit, wherein the configuration information comprises a configured state of the first device and a duration for serving as one of a plurality of peer devices as taught by Vandwalle because power is conserved by enabling individually devices to be automatically synchronized instead of individually discovering other devices and services (Vandwalle, Abstract).
However, Klemets in view of Vandwalle does not disclose communicating any change of state of the first device to one or more of said peer devices.
Qi, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches communicating any change of state of the first device to one or more of said peer devices (¶50, Qi discloses sending, by a device, an Operation Notification frame to communicate a change in a device's operation to peer devices).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Klemets in view of Vandwalle by communicating any change of state of the first device to one or more of said peer devices as taught by Qi because the performance of device-to-device communication is improved by providing a dynamic capability information notification mechanism to allow a peer device to notify its peer about its operation information (Qi, ¶86).
Regarding Claim 2, Klemets in view of Vandwalle in further view of Qi discloses a first device as claimed in claim 1.
Klemets further discloses wherein said one or more triggers include an explicit request defining a new required state for the first device (¶54 & Fig. 4 (452 OR 462 OR 480), Klemets discloses that a new state of the receiving device is triggered by receipt of the magic packet, the remote launch command, or the connection request).
Regarding Claim 3, Klemets in view of Vandwalle in further view of Qi discloses a first device as claimed in claim 2.
Klemets further discloses the controlling the change in the state of the first device prioritizes explicit requests over other triggers (¶54 & Fig. 4 (452 OR 462 OR 480), Klemets discloses controlling a low-power state of the receiving device to a higher-power state of the receiving device prioritizes the reception of the magic packet over other triggers).
Regarding Claim 13, Klemets in view of Vandwalle in further view of Qi discloses a first device as claimed in claim 1.
Klemets further discloses wherein the first device is a user equipment of a mobile communication system (¶20, Klemets discloses a mobile device).
Regarding Claim 14, Klemets in view of Vandwalle in further view of Qi discloses a first device as claimed in claim 1.
Klemets further discloses wherein the second device is an ambient device or a passive device (¶20, Klemets discloses a mobile device).
Regarding Claim 15, Klemets in view of Vandwalle in further view of Qi discloses a system comprising one or more first devices (¶20, Klemets discloses a plurality of mobile devices) as claimed in claim 1, and further comprising one or more of said second devices (¶20, Klemets discloses a plurality of mobile devices).
Regarding Claim 16, Klemets in view of Vandwalle in further view of Qi discloses a system as claimed in claim 15, further comprising the control unit (¶46-47 & ¶97 & Fig. 3 (304), Vandwalle discloses a master device).
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2.
Regarding Claim 25, Claim 25 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemets in view of Vandwalle in view of Qi in further view of Konrad et al. (US 20150181487 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Konrad”).
Regarding Claim 6, Klemets in view of Vandwalle in further view of Qi discloses a first device as claimed in claim 1.
However, Klemets in view of Vandwalle in further view of Qi
Konrad, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein said one or more triggers include a requirement for the first device to perform a higher priority task, in response to which the first device ceases to serve as one of said plurality of peer devices (¶44, Konrad discloses that a timer indicates a duration of time for serving in the peer-to-peer communication mode and exiting P2P communication mode in response to a timer expiring. Examiner correlates infrastructure mode to "a higher priority task").
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Klemets in view of Vandwalle in further view of Qi by requiring that said one or more triggers include a requirement for the first device to perform a higher priority task, in response to which the first device ceases to serve as one of said plurality of peer devices as taught by Qi because switching between multiple communication modes, such as between a Wi-Fi infrastructure mode and a Wi-Fi Peer-to-Peer mode, is rendered more efficient (Konrad, ¶4).
Regarding Claim 7, Klemets in view of Vandwalle in further view of Qi discloses a first device as claimed in claim 1.
However, Klemets in view of Vandwalle in further view of Qi does not disclose wherein said one or more triggers include the expiry of the duration for serving as one of said plurality of peer devices, in response to which the first device ceases to serve as one of said plurality of peer devices.
Konrad, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein said one or more triggers include the expiry of the duration for serving as one of said plurality of peer devices, in response to which the first device ceases to serve as one of said plurality of peer devices (¶44, Konrad discloses that a timer indicates a duration of time for serving in the peer-to-peer communication mode and exiting P2P communication mode in response to a timer expiring).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Klemets in view of Vandwalle in further view of Qi by requiring that said one or more triggers include the expiry of the duration for serving as one of said plurality of peer devices, in response to which the first device ceases to serve as one of said plurality of peer devices as taught by Qi because switching between multiple communication modes, such as between a Wi-Fi infrastructure mode and a Wi-Fi Peer-to-Peer mode, is rendered more efficient (Konrad, ¶4).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemets in view of Vandwalle in view of Qi in further view of Park et al. (US 20170280469 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Park”).
Regarding Claim 10, Klemets in view of Vandwalle in view of Qi discloses a first device as claimed in claim 1.
However, Klemets in view of Vandwalle in view of Qi does not disclose wherein the configuration information comprises a list of second devices to be served by the first device.
Park, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the configuration information comprises a list of second devices to be served by the first device (¶352, Park discloses that configuration information includes a device-to-device (D2D) user equipment (UE) list where the D2D UE list includes a list of user equipments that will interact with a D2D assisting device (DAD)).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Klemets in view of Vandwalle in further view of Qi by requiring that said one or more triggers include the expiry of the duration for serving as one of said plurality of peer devices, in response to which the first device ceases to serve as one of said plurality of peer devices as taught by Qi because D2D communication is rendered more efficient by assisting a D2D communication in a wireless communication system supporting the D2D communication (Park, ¶4).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klemets in view of Vandwalle in view of Qi in further view of Liu et al. (US 20100260093 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Liu”).
Regarding Claim 11, Klemets in view of Vandwalle in view of Qi discloses a first device as claimed in claim 1.
However, Klemets in view of Vandwalle in view of Qi do not disclose said plurality of states comprise a relay state.
Liu, a prior art reference wherein said plurality of states comprise a relay state (¶4 & ¶6, Liu discloses a peer device having an additional state as a relay).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Klemets in view of Vandwalle in further view of Qi by requiring that said plurality of states comprise a relay state as taught by Liu because the coverage extension is improved by allowing a peer device to act as a relay (Liu, ¶5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 8-9, 12, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights