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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 16 August 2024 was filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 16 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 16 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-25 are 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 1, Claim 13, and Claim 20, said claims recite “responsive to this determination, transmitting at least an identifier of the first transmitting device and location information of the user equipment to a roaming exchange for transmission to an Internet of Things (IoT) platform of the first organization” which renders said claims unclear because Examiner is unable to determine whether “the determination” refers to either “determining, from the first message, that the first transmitting device is associated with a first organization” or “determining, using a data structure installed on the user equipment, that roaming is allowed for the first transmitting device from the first organization to the second organization”. For the purpose of examination, “the determination” will be interpreted as either limitation. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending “responsive to this determination” to either “in response to determining, from the first message, that the first transmitting device is associated with the first organization” or “in response to determining, using a data structure installed on the user equipment, that roaming is allowed for the first transmitting device from the first organization to the second organization” depending upon Applicant’s intent.
Regarding Claims 2-6, Claims 14-19, and Claims 21-25, Claims 2-6, Claims 14-19, and Claims 21-25 are likewise rejected for depending upon rejected Claim 1, rejected Claim 13, and rejected Claim 20.
Claims 1-25 are 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 1, Claim 13, and Claim 20, said claims recite “responsive to this determination, ignoring the received second message” which renders said claims unclear because Examiner is unable to determine whether “the determination” refers to either “determining, from the second message, that the second transmitting device is associated with a third organization” or “determining, using the data structure installed on the user equipment, that roaming is not allowed for the second transmitting device from the third organization to the second organization”. For the purpose of examination, “the determination” will be interpreted as either limitation. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending “responsive to this determination” to either “in response to determining, from the second message, that the second transmitting device is associated with a third organization” or “in response to determining, using the data structure installed on the user equipment, that roaming is not allowed for the second transmitting device from the third organization to the second organization” depending upon Applicant’s intent.
Regarding Claims 2-6, Claims 14-19, and Claims 21-25, Claims 2-6, Claims 14-19, and Claims 21-25 are likewise rejected for depending upon rejected Claim 1, rejected Claim 13, and rejected Claim 20.
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, 3-7, 13, 15-19, 20, and 22-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shetty et al. (US 20180124590 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Shetty”) in view of Wu et al. (US 20190380033 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Wu”).
Regarding Claim 1, Claim 1 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 20.
Regarding Claim 3, Claim 3 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 22.
Regarding Claim 4, Claim 4 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 23.
Regarding Claim 5, Claim 5 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 24.
Regarding Claim 6, Claim 6 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 25.
Regarding Claim 7, Claim 7 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 19.
Regarding Claim 13, Claim 13 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 20.
Regarding Claim 15, Claim 15 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 22.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 23.
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 24.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 25.
Regarding Claim 19, Shetty in view of Wu discloses the non-transitory computer-readable storage medium of claim 13.
Shetty further discloses wherein determining that roaming is not allowed for the second transmitting device includes
determining that a roaming permission flag included in the second message indicates that roaming is not allowed for the second transmitting device (¶47-48 & Fig. 4 (430), Shetty discloses determining that either the network ID or the application ID included in the message indicates whether the IoT device is not allowed to roam. Here, any one of the network ID, application ID, or combination thereof is present on the blacklist, then the message is dropped or deleted).
Regarding Claim 20, Shetty discloses a user equipment (UE) for a crowdsourced Internet-of-Things (IoT) solution, the UE comprising:
a processor (¶43 & Fig. 4 (410), Shetty discloses a gateway comprising a processor 810); and
a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that provides instructions that, if executed by the processor, cause the UE to carry out operations (¶43 & Fig. 4 (410), Shetty discloses the gateway further includes a non-transitory storage medium storing data and/or instructions that are accessible by the processor 810 to cause the gateway to perform a method) including:
receiving, at the user equipment, a first message from a first transmitting device (¶43 & Fig. 4 (410), Shetty discloses receiving, at a gateway of a first lower power wide area network (LPWAN), a message from a first Internet Of Things (IoT) device),
determining, from the first message, that the first transmitting device is associated with a first organization (¶43 & Fig. 4 (420 & 430), Shetty discloses determining, from the message, that the first IoT device is associated with the first LPWAN via a network identifier (ID) or a location of the first IoT device), and
wherein the user equipment is associated with a second organization (¶43 & Fig. 4 (430->470), Shetty discloses that the gateway is associated with a Roaming Device Data Server (RDDS) where the RDDS is associated with a second LPWAN),
determining, using a data structure installed on the user equipment, that roaming is allowed for the first transmitting device from the first organization to the second organization (¶43-54 & Fig. 4 (430->470 OR 450), Shetty discloses determining, using both a whitelist and a blacklist on the gateway, that the IoT device may roam from the first LPWAN to the second LPWAN), and
responsive to this determination, transmitting at least an identifier of the first transmitting device and location information of the user equipment to a roaming exchange for transmission to an Internet of Things (IoT) platform of the first organization (¶54 & Fig. 4 (470) & Claim 12, Shetty discloses forwarding the message including at least a network identifier (ID) and location of the IoT device to a RDDS in response to determining, using both a whitelist and a blacklist on the gateway, that the IoT device may roam from the first LPWAN to the second LPWAN),
receiving, at the user equipment, a second message from a second transmitting device (¶43 & Fig. 4 (410), Shetty discloses receiving, at a gateway of a first lower power wide area network (LPWAN), a message from a second IoT device),
determining, from the second message, that the second transmitting device is associated with a third organization (¶43 & Fig. 4 (420 & 430), Shetty discloses determining, from the message, that the IoT device is associated with the first LPWAN via a network identifier (ID) or a location of the first IoT device), and
determining, using the data structure installed on the user equipment, that roaming is not allowed for the second transmitting device from the third organization to the second organization (¶43-54 & Fig. 4 (430->440), Shetty discloses determining, using both a whitelist and a blacklist on the gateway, that the IoT device may not roam from the first LPWAN to the second LPWAN), and
responsive to this determination, ignoring the received second message (¶48 & Fig. 4 (440), Shetty discloses deleting the message in response to determining that the second IoT device may not roam).
However, Shetty does not disclose that a user equipment may operate as a gateway for IoT devices.
Wu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches a user equipment may operate as a gateway for IoT devices (¶125, Wu discloses that a user equipment may acts as a gateway for low powered internet of things (IoT) 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 Shetty by requiring that a user equipment may operate as a gateway for IoT devices as taught by Wu because security in Wireless Local area networks, WLAN and more specifically to user privacy in WLAN is improved by enabling the receipt of a user identity in response to sending a message comprising an anonymous user identity (Wu, Abstract & ¶3-6).
Regarding Claim 22, Shetty in view of Wu discloses the user equipment of claim 20.
Shetty further discloses wherein the location information includes a Global Positioning System (GPS) location of the user equipment (¶16, Shetty discloses that the message includes the location information of the IoT device where the location information is generated with a global positioning sensor).
Regarding Claim 23, Shetty in view of Wu discloses the user equipment of claim 20.
Shetty further discloses wherein determining that roaming is allowed for the first transmitting device includes:
determining an organization identifier that identifies the first organization (¶44-48 & Fig. 4 (420 & 430), Shetty discloses determining, from the message, a network identifier (ID) or an application ID); and
comparing the determined organization identifier against the data structure to determine that roaming is allowed for the first organization to the second organization (¶47-48 & Fig. 4 (430), Shetty discloses comparing either the network ID or the application ID against a whitelist/blacklist to determine whether the IoT device is allowed to roam).
Regarding Claim 24, Shetty in view of Wu discloses the user equipment of claim 23.
Shetty further discloses wherein determining that roaming is allowed for the first transmitting device further includes:
determining that a roaming permission flag included in the first message indicates that roaming is allowed for the first transmitting device (¶47-48 & Fig. 4 (430), Shetty discloses determining that either the network ID or the application ID included in the message indicates whether the IoT device is allowed to roam).
Regarding Claim 25, Shetty in view of Wu discloses the user equipment of claim 23.
Shetty further discloses wherein determining that roaming is allowed for the first transmitting device further includes:
determining that a plurality of roaming permission flags included in the first message indicate that roaming is allowed for the first transmitting device for the second organization (¶47-48 & Fig. 4 (430), Shetty discloses determining that either the network ID and the application ID included in the message indicates whether the IoT device is allowed to roam).
Claims 2, 14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shetty in view of Wu in further view of Calvert et al. (US 20190188934 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Calvert”).
Regarding Claim 2, Claim 2 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 21.
Regarding Claim 14, Claim 14 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 21.
Regarding Claim 21, Shetty in view of Wu discloses the user equipment of claim 20.
However, Shetty in view of Wu does not disclose wherein the first message is a first Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) advertisement message, and wherein the second message is a second BLE advertisement message.
Calvert, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first message is a first Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) advertisement message (¶31, Calvert discloses a low power device 225, such as an IoT device, may communicate data over low power wireless connections where the low power wireless connection may be according to a Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) protocol), and
wherein the second message is a second BLE advertisement message (¶31, Calvert discloses a low power device 225, such as an IoT device, may communicate data over low power wireless connections where the low power wireless connection may be according to a Bluetooth Low Energy (LE) protocol).
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 Shetty in view of Wu by requiring that the first message is a first Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) advertisement message and that the second message is a second BLE advertisement message as taught by Calvert because access control is improved by enabling techniques for low-power wireless devices (Calvert, ¶4-7).
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