DETAILED ACTION
Status of Case
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This Office Action is in response to the claims filed on 8/28/2024.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7-8, 12, 14, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (EP 2983394 A1) in view of Maeda (USPAN 2014/0130028) and Brendle (USPAN 2005/0022157).
Consider claims 1 and 12, Wang discloses an apparatus comprising processing circuitry (see figures 6-7, wherein disclosed is said apparatus), and a corresponding wireless communication device, comprising: transceiver circuitry configured to communicate with a child device; and processing circuitry communicatively coupled to the transceiver circuitry (see figures 6-7, wherein disclosed is said wireless communication device) configured to:
process, based on signaling received from a device, a data request (see figure 11 (reproduced below for convenience) and paragraph 94: receiving a RLF report transmitted by a UE);
determine whether an active context exists with the device based on data stored in firmware (see paragraph 94: “the first base station may look up whether the above information exists in the context information”); and
PNG
media_image1.png
492
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang does not specifically disclose to determine whether to respond to the data request based on whether the active context exists.
Maeda discloses to determine whether to respond to the data request based on whether the active context exists (see paragraphs 147-156: determining whether or not it is necessary to send an update notification based on the contents thus stored in firmware).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang and combine it with the noted teachings of Maeda. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a method for remote update of firmware that is mounted in an information processing apparatus (see paragraph 2 of Maeda).
Wang does not specifically disclose signaling received by a parent device from a child device.
Brendle discloses signaling received by a parent device from a child device (see paragraph 85: the resource can be a parent and/or child to other resources), and further discloses
determining whether an active context exists (see paragraph 85: if a resource request has been received, process 500 continues with determining whether the associated application context process is active).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang and combine it with the noted teachings of Brendle. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a method for application management and for accessing resources for a context that allows for managing resources and for allow an application to be isolated from contexts of other executing applications (see paragraph 5 of Brendle).
Consider claims 3 and 14, Wang does not specifically disclose that the processing circuitry is further configured to refrain from responding to the data request when the active context does not exist with the child device.
Maeda discloses that the processing circuitry is further configured to refrain from responding to the data request when the active context does not exist with the child device (see paragraphs 147-156: determining whether or not it is necessary to send an update notification based on the contents thus stored in firmware).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang and combine it with the noted teachings of Maeda. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a method for remote update of firmware that is mounted in an information processing apparatus (see paragraph 2 of Maeda).
Consider claims 7 and 18, Wang discloses data stored in firmware comprises a table (see paragraph 94: “the first base station may look up whether the above information exists in the context information”).
Wang does not specifically disclose that the data is in a child device.
Brendle discloses data that is in a child device (see paragraph 85: the resource can be a parent and/or child to other resources).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang and combine it with the noted teachings of Brendle. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a method for application management and for accessing resources for a context that allows for managing resources and for allow an application to be isolated from contexts of other executing applications (see paragraph 5 of Brendle).
Consider claims 8 and 19, although Wang discloses to establish the active context with the device (see above), Wang does not specifically disclose to store an indication of the active context in the device.
Maeda discloses to store an indication of the active context in the device (see paragraph 149: update the firmware, i.e. store an indication in the firmware of the active context).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang and combine it with the noted teachings of Maeda. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a method for remote update of firmware that is mounted in an information processing apparatus (see paragraph 2 of Maeda).
Wang discloses data stored in firmware comprises a table (see paragraph 94: “the first base station may look up whether the above information exists in the context information”).
Wang does not specifically disclose that the data is in a child device.
Brendle discloses data that is in a child device (see paragraph 85: the resource can be a parent and/or child to other resources).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang and combine it with the noted teachings of Brendle. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a method for application management and for accessing resources for a context that allows for managing resources and for allow an application to be isolated from contexts of other executing applications (see paragraph 5 of Brendle).
Consider claim 20, Wang discloses a method performed by a device (see figure 11, reproduced below for convenience, wherein disclosed is said method), comprising:
processing, based on signaling received from another device, a data request (see figure 11 and paragraph 94: receiving a RLF report transmitted by a UE);
determining whether the device has an active context with the another device based on data stored in firmware of the device (see paragraph 94: “the first base station may look up whether the above information exists in the context information”).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
540
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wang does not specifically disclose to determine whether to respond to the data request based on whether the active context exists.
Maeda discloses to determine whether to respond to the data request based on whether the active context exists (see paragraphs 147-156: determining whether or not it is necessary to send an update notification based on the contents thus stored in firmware).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang and combine it with the noted teachings of Maeda. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a method for remote update of firmware that is mounted in an information processing apparatus (see paragraph 2 of Maeda).
Wang does not specifically disclose signaling received by a parent device from a child device.
Brendle discloses signaling received by a parent device from a child device (see paragraph 85: the resource can be a parent and/or child to other resources), and further discloses
determining whether an active context exists (see paragraph 85: if a resource request has been received, process 500 continues with determining whether the associated application context process is active).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang and combine it with the noted teachings of Brendle. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a method for application management and for accessing resources for a context that allows for managing resources and for allow an application to be isolated from contexts of other executing applications (see paragraph 5 of Brendle).
Claims 2, 4-6, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (EP 2983394 A1) in view of Maeda (USPAN 2014/0130028), Brendle (USPAN 2005/0022157), and Lee (USPAN 2016/0070718).
Consider claims 2 and 13, although Wang discloses determining when the active context exists (see above), Wang does not specifically disclose generating an acknowledgement (ACK) as a response to a data request when the active context exists with a child device.
Lee discloses generating an acknowledgement (ACK) as a response to a data request when the active context exists with a child device (see paragraph 80: transmitting an acknowledgement (ACK) message confirming that the first message has been transferred to the battery-powered device to the smart HA).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang and combine it with the noted teachings of Lee. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a method for efficient communications with battery-powered devices in a home area network in which a home smart grid is implemented (see paragraph 2 of Lee).
Consider claims 4 and 15, Wang does not specifically disclose that the child device comprises a sleepy end device.
Lee discloses that the child device comprises a sleepy end device (see paragraph 68: sleepy end node).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang and combine it with the noted teachings of Lee. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a method for efficient communications with battery-powered devices in a home area network in which a home smart grid is implemented (see paragraph 2 of Lee).
Consider claims 5 and 16, although Wang discloses a data request (see above), Wang does not specifically disclose that it comprises an IEEE 802.15.4 data request.
Lee discloses that a data request comprises an IEEE 802.15.4 data request (see paragraph 59: 802.15.4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang and combine it with the noted teachings of Lee. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a method for efficient communications with battery-powered devices in a home area network in which a home smart grid is implemented (see paragraph 2 of Lee).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (EP 2983394 A1) in view of Maeda (USPAN 2014/0130028), Brendle (USPAN 2005/0022157), and Palin (USPAN 2006/0194538).
Consider claims 6 and 17, although Wang discloses a data request (see above), and Maeda discloses determining whether to respond to the data request (see above), Wang does not disclose determining whether to respond within 192 microseconds from reception of the data request.
Palin discloses determining whether to respond within 192 microseconds from reception of the data request (see paragraph 10: a 192 microsecond interval for synchronization preamble, which is the amount allocated to synchronize and respond within 192 ms from reception of a signal).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Wang and combine it with the noted teachings of Palin. The motivation to combine these references is to provide a method for reducing interference in communications having both a wireless local area network and Bluetooth interface (see paragraph 1 of Palin).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jamal Javaid whose telephone number is 571-270-5137 and email address is Jamal.Javaid@uspto.gov.
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, Charles Jiang, can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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).
/JAMAL JAVAID/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights