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 .
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 1-12, 14, 16, 18-20 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.
Claims 1-12, 14, 16, 18-20 have inconsistent usage of terms and therefore many lack of antecedent basis type of issues making the claims indefinite. Applicant’s help is requested in amending the claims to have consistent terminology and to clarify what is being claimed. Here is a non-exhaustive list of the issues noticed by examiner:
Regarding claim 1:
It is unclear from the claim language what the applicant means by a transmitter configured to transmit to the unmodified WiFi device, a second “Wifi signal” in line 14. Lines 2 and 3 of the claim state “module configured to operate in accordance to a wireless protocol that is different than a WiFi protocol and emulate direct transmission and reception of WiFi signals to and from an unmodified device”. Thus, it is unclear how the claimed transmitter is configured to transmit a WiFi signal when the module only emulates transmission of WiFi signals. Clarification required as to whether the transmitter is transmitting an emulated WiFi signal or a second WiFi signal. Claim 6 also has “the second WiFi signal”.
Regarding claim 2:
The terms “the data packet” and “the bits” in line 3 lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 5:
The term “the data packet” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 9:
The term “the data packet” in lines 2 and 3 lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 11:
It is unclear from the claim language if “a computing device” in line 2 is the same as “a computing device” in line 13 of claim 1. Clarification required. The term “the at least one non-WiFi protocol” lacks antecedent basis. The term is repeated in dependent claim 12 without further clarification.
Regarding claims 2-12:
Claims 2-12 are rejected as being indefinite because they depend on indefinite claims.
Regarding claim 14:
The term “the bits” in line 2 lack antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 16:
The term “the data packet” in line 2 lacks antecedent basis.
Regarding claim 18:
It is unclear from the claim language what the applicant means “transmit the Wifi signal” in line the last line of the claim. Lines 1 and 2 of the claim state “module configured to emulate direct transmission of a WiFi signal”. Thus, it is unclear how the claimed transmitter is configured to transmit a WiFi signal when the module only emulates transmission of WiFi signals. Clarification required as to whether the transmitter is transmitting an emulated WiFi signal or a WiFi signal.
Further, line 2 states the term “ a standard direct-sequence spread spectrum (DSSS) dapta packet”, but lines 4-6 use the term “the DSSS data packet” , which lacks antecedent basis. Clarification required as to whether “the DSSS data packet” is different from or the same as the standard DSSS packet claimed in line 2.
Regarding claims 19 and 20:
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected as being indefinite because they depend on claim 18.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
Claim 13, 15, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by He et al. (US 20180352055 A1), hereinafter, He.
Regarding claim 13:
He discloses a receiver of a module (Fig. 4, Zigbee device) comprising:
configured to emulate direct transmission and reception of an unmodified WiFi signal from an unmodified WiFi device (Fig. 4, WiFi device, paragraph [0138], WIFi device is claimed unmodified WiFi device),
the receiver comprising a narrowband filter and a narrowband demodulator (Paragraph [0138], receiver ignores header, preamble and trailer of received frame, i.e, only passes a narrow portion of the received signal, i.e. receiver comprises narrowband filter as claimed; and then the narrow portion leftover after filtering of the received frame is demodulated, i.e. receiver comprises a narrowband demodulator), the receiver configured to operate in accordance to a wireless protocol different than a WiFi protocol (Paragraph [0138],receiver is configured to operate in Zigbee protocol) and receive the unmodified WiFi signal having an arbitrary data packet from the unmodified WiFi device (Fig. 4, Zigbee receiver receives WiFi frame from Wifi device), without payload selection or precoding on the unmodified WiFi device (there is no precoding on the WiFi device; However, it is pointed out that the limitation “without payload selection or precoding on the unmodified WiFi device” is not given patentable weight because it does not limit the receiver of a module to which claim 13 is drawn, but rather the unmodified WiFi device which is outside claimed receiver of a module ), the narrowband filter configured to extract portions of the spectrum of the unmodified WiFi signal from the unmodified WiFi device (Paragraph [0138], receiver ignores header, preamble and trailer of received frame, i.e, only passes a narrow portion of the received signal, i.e. narrowband filter configured to extract portions of the spectrum of the unmodified WiFi signal from the unmodified WiFi device ), and the narrowband demodulator configured to convert the extracted portions of the unmodified WiFi signal into a plurality of bits to allow the receiver to recover the arbitrary data packet from the unmodified first WiFi signal (Paragraph [0138], the narrow portion extracted after filtering of the received frame is demodulated, i.e. receiver comprises a narrowband demodulator convert the extracted portions of the unmodified WiFi signal into a plurality of bits to allow for recovery of the Zigbee frame within a WiFi frame).
Regarding claim 15:
He discloses the receiver, wherein the unmodified first WiFi signal has a first frequency ((Wifi signals inherently have a frequency (claimed first frequency), paragraph [0073]), and wherein the receiver is configured to operate at a
frequency shifted by a defined amount with respect to the first frequency of the unmodified WiFi signal or a frequency equal to the first frequency (paragraph [0043], receiver does not perform any frequency shifting, i.e. the receiver is configured to operate at a frequency equal to the first frequency).
Regarding claim 16:
He discloses wherein the receiver is configured to recognize the data packet by detecting a defined bit sequence in the unmodified WiFi signal (Paragraph [0138], Zigbee preamble detection is claimed recognizing of the data packet by detecting a defined bit sequence in the unmodified WiFi signal ).
Regarding claim 17:
He discloses the receiver wherein the narrowband demodulator is a Frequency-Shift Keying (FSK) demodulator (optional limitation) or a Phase-Shift Keying (PSK) demodulator (Paragraphs [0181], OQPSK demodulator ).
Claims 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (2) as being anticipated by Jung et al. (US 20260052056 A1), hereinafter, Jung.
Regarding claim 18:
Jung discloses a transmitter of a module (Fig. 1, first device 1 and device 10 together are claimed transmitter of a module) configured to emulate direct transmission of a WiFi signal (Fig. 7, Zigbee header is converted to Wifi header thereby emulating transmission of a WiFi signal, see paragraphs [0043], [0046]) having a standard direct-sequence spread spectrum (DSSS) data packet (Fig. 2A, DSSS module; see paragraph [0043] ) to an unmodified WiFi device (Fig. 1, device 2, wifi receiver of Fig. 3A; see paragraphs [0031]-[0033], [0044]), the transmitter comprising at least one component configured to shift a phase of the transmitter based on a plurality of bits of the DSSS data packet (Fig. 2A, OQPSK is claimed component configured to shift a phase of the transmitter based on a plurality of bits of the DSSS data packet; see paragraph [0043]), the transmitter configured to operate in accordance to a wireless protocol different than a WiFi protocol (Zigbee protocol; paragraph [0043]) and transmit the WiFi signal having the DSSS data packet to the unmodified WiFi device (See paragraphs [0043]-[0050]).
Regarding claim 19:
Jung further discloses the transmitter includes the at least one component of the transmitter includes at least one of a mixer, a phase shifter or an RF switch configured to shift the phase of the transmitter based on the plurality of bits of the DSSS data packet (OQPSK inherently entails phase shifter; paragraph [0043]).
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.
Claims 1-8, 10-12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view of Jung.
Regarding claim 1:
He discloses a system comprising a module configured to operate in accordance to a wireless protocol different than a WiFi protocol (Paragraph [0138],receiver is configured to operate in Zigbee protocol) and emulate direct reception of WiFi signals to and from an unmodified WiFi device (Fig. 4, WiFi device, paragraph [0138], WiFi device is claimed unmodified WiFi device), without payload selection or precoding on the unmodified WiFi device (there is no precoding on the WiFi device; However, it is pointed out that the limitation “without payload selection or precoding on the unmodified WiFi device” is not given patentable weight because it does not limit the receiver of a module to which claim 13 is drawn, but rather the unmodified WiFi device which is outside claimed module), the module including:
a receiver (Fig. 4, Zigbee device) configured to receive from the
the unmodified WiFi signal having an arbitrary data packet (Fig. 4, Zigbee receiver receives WiFi frame from Wifi device), the receiver including a narrowband filter and a narrowband demodulator (Paragraph [0138], receiver ignores header, preamble and trailer of received frame, i.e, only passes a narrow portion of the received signal, i.e. receiver comprises narrowband filter as claimed; and then the narrow portion leftover after filtering of the received frame is demodulated, i.e. receiver comprises a narrowband demodulator),
the narrowband filter configured to extract portions of the spectrum of the unmodified WiFi signal from the unmodified WiFi device (Paragraph [0138], receiver ignores header, preamble and trailer of received frame, i.e, only passes a narrow portion of the received signal, i.e. narrowband filter configured to extract portions of the spectrum of the unmodified WiFi signal from the unmodified WiFi device ), and the narrowband demodulator configured to convert the extracted portions of the unmodified WiFi signal into a plurality of bits to allow the receiver to recover the arbitrary data packet from the unmodified first WiFi signal for a computing device (Paragraph [0138], the narrow portion extracted after filtering of the received frame is demodulated, i.e. receiver comprises a narrowband demodulator convert the extracted portions of the unmodified WiFi signal into a plurality of bits to allow for recovery of the Zigbee frame within a WiFi frame; i.e. allow the receiver to recover the arbitrary data packet from the unmodified first WiFi signal . The limitation “for a computing device” is an intended use of signal and as such, the computing device itself is outside the scope of the claimed system and thus does not limit the claimed system; thus “for a computing device” is not given patentable weight).
He discloses all the limitations of claim 1 above, but fails to explicitly disclose a emulate direct transmission of WiFI signals and transmitter configured to transmit, to the unmodified WiFi device, a second WiFi signal.
However, Jung discloses a system with a module including a transmitter (Fig. 1, first device 1 and device 10 together are claimed transmitter of a module) configured to emulate direct transmission of a WiFi signal (Fig. 7, Zigbee header is converted to Wifi header thereby emulating transmission of a WiFi signal, see paragraphs [0043], [0046], [0067]) the transmitter configured to operate in accordance to a wireless protocol different than a WiFi protocol (Zigbee protocol; paragraph [0043]) and transmit a second WiFi signal (Fig. 7, output of device 10 is claimed second Wifi signal) to the unmodified WiFi device (See paragraphs [0043]-[0050] and [0067], WiFi receiver of Fig. 3A is claimed unmodified WiFi device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that He’s system comprising a module including a receiver would also include a transmitter as disclosed by Jung. It would have been obvious because this allows for devices in an environment with different protocols than Wifi to communicate fully with a Wifi device.
Regarding claim 2:
He and Jung disclose all limitations of claim 1 above.
He fails to explicitly disclose the system, wherein the receiver further comprises a descrambler coupled to the narrowband demodulator, and wherein the descrambler is configured to recover the data packet from the bits.
However, Jung discloses a receiver (Fig. 8) comprises a descrambler coupled to a demodulator, and wherein the descrambler (Fig. 8, descrambler and decoding unit 100 together are claimed descrambler) is configured to recover the data packet from the bits (Paragraph [0069]-[0071]; Demodulator outputs bits that are descrambled to obtain WiFi bits and then mapped to Zigbee symbols to recover the received Zigbee data packet. Although Jung’s receiver is a Wifi receiver, Jung discloses how a receiver operating in a protocol different than the protocol used to transmit a data package performs recovery of the data package using descrambling).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the receiver comprising a narrowband demodulator disclosed by He to incorporate a descrambler configured to recover the data packet from the bits as disclosed by Jung, thereby arriving at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious because Jung discloses how to enable successful data and efficient package recovery in devices in an environment with different protocols to communicate fully with each other.
Regarding claim 3:
He and Jung disclose all limitations of claim 1 above.
He discloses the system, wherein the unmodified first WiFi signal has a first frequency (Wifi signals inherently have a frequency (claimed first frequency), paragraph [0073]).
He also discloses communication between two devices, first device with a first protocol, wifi and a second device with a second protocol, Bluetooth (Paragraph [0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the receiver disclosed by He to receive a wifi signal while operating on Bluetooth protocol as disclosed by He in a second embodiment.
It would have been obvious so as to allow Wifi devices to successfully communicate with devices operating on different protocols in an environment.
He is silent on the receiver being configured to operate at a frequency shifted by a defined amount with respect to the first frequency of the unmodified first WiFi signal.
However, Jung discloses a Wifi receiver for recovering Bluetooth signals wherein in order to retrieve/demodulate/recover Bluetooth signal from a Wifi signal, the receiver performs GFSK (I.e. operates at a frequency shifted by a defined amount with respect to the first frequency of the wifi signal) (See Fig. 10, GFSK demodulator 140; paragraphs [0080], [0081] ).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the bluetooth receiver as disclosed by He to operate at shifted frequency as disclosed by Jung, thereby arriving at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious because Jung discloses how to enable successful data and efficient package recovery in devices in an environment with different protocols to communicate fully with each other.
Regarding claim 4:
He and Jung disclose all limitations of claim 1 above.
He discloses the system, wherein the unmodified first WiFi signal has a first frequency (Wifi signals inherently have a frequency (claimed first frequency), paragraph [0073]), and wherein the receiver is configured to operate at a frequency equal to the first frequency (paragraph [0043], receiver does not perform any frequency shifting, i.e. the receiver is configured to operate at a frequency equal to the first frequency).
Regarding claim 5:
He and Jung disclose all the limitations of claim 1 above.
He further discloses wherein the receiver is configured to recognize the data packet by detecting a defined bit sequence in the unmodified WiFi signal (Paragraph [0138], Zigbee preamble detection is claimed recognizing of the data packet by detecting a defined bit sequence in the unmodified WiFi signal ).
Regarding claim 6:
He and Jung disclose all the limitations of claim 1 above. Jung further discloses:
The system wherein the second WiFi signal includes a data packet having a plurality of bits and wherein the transmitter is a narrowband transmitter (transmitter is Zigbee which has a narrow bandwidth compared to Wifi, hence transmitter is narrowband transmitter as claimed) configured to transmit the second WiFi signal by shifting a phase of the narrowband transmitter based on the plurality of bits of the data packet (Paragraphs [0036], [0043], OQPSK performs claimed shifting of a phase).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that He’s system comprising a module including a receiver would also include a transmitter as disclosed by Jung. It would have been obvious because this allows for devices in an environment with different protocols than Wifi to communicate fully with a Wifi device.
Regarding claim 7:
He and Jung disclose all the limitations of claim 1 above. Jung further discloses:
The system wherein the narrowband transmitter includes at least one of a mixer, a phase shifter, or a phase lock loop (PLL) configured to shift the phase of the narrowband transmitter (OQPSK inherently entails phase shifter; paragraph [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that He’s system comprising a module including a receiver would also include a transmitter as disclosed by Jung. It would have been obvious because this allows for devices in an environment with different protocols than Wifi to communicate fully with a Wifi device.
Regarding claim 8:
He and Jung disclose all the limitations of claim 1 above. Jung further discloses:
wherein the narrowband transmitter is a Frequency-Shift Keying (FSK) transmitter (Paragraph [0083], the transmitter is a BLE transmitter modulated using GFSK (claimed FSK)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that He’s system comprising a module including a receiver as modified by Jung to include a transmitter to be further modified to substitute Jung’s Zigbee transmitter with a BLE transmitter that is an FSK transmitter as disclosed by another embodiment of Jung. It would have been obvious because this allows for a device in an environment with many different protocols than Wifi to communicate fully with a Wifi device.
Regarding claim 10:
He and Jung disclose all the limitations of claim 1 above. He discloses system
wherein the narrowband demodulator is a Frequency-Shift Keying (FSK) demodulator or a Phase-Shift Keying (PSK) demodulator (Paragraph [0070], OQPSK demodulator is claimed PSK demodulator).
Regarding claim 11:
He and Jung disclose all the limitations of claim 1 above. He discloses system
further comprising a computing device in communication with the module, the computing device configured to operate in accordance to the at least one non-WiFi wireless protocol (Paragraph [0087], receiver with computing device as used in the Zigbee receiver of paragraph [0138]).
Regarding claim 12:
He and Jung disclose all the limitations of claim 11 above. He discloses system
further wherein the at least one non-WiFi wireless protocol includes one of a Bluetooth protocol or an Internet of things (loT) protocol (Paragraph [0088]).
Regarding claim 14:
He discloses the receiver of claim 13, but fails to explicitly receiver further comprises a descrambler coupled to the narrowband demodulator, and wherein the descrambler is configured to recover the data packet from the bits.
However, Jung discloses a receiver (Fig. 8) comprises a descrambler coupled to a demodulator, and wherein the descrambler (Fig. 8, descrambler and decoding unit 100 together are claimed descrambler) is configured to recover the data packet from the bits (Paragraph [0069]-[0071]; Demodulator outputs bits that are descrambled to obtain WiFi bits and then mapped to Zigbee symbols to recover the received Zigbee data packet. Although Jung’s receiver is a Wifi receiver, Jung discloses how a receiver operating in a protocol different than the protocol used to transmit a data package performs recovery of the data package using descrambling).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the receiver comprising a narrowband demodulator disclosed by He to incorporate a descrambler configured to recover the data packet from the bits as disclosed by Jung, thereby arriving at the claimed invention. It would have been obvious because Jung discloses how to enable successful data and efficient package recovery in devices in an environment with different protocols to communicate fully with each other.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over He in view Jung as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ecclesine (US 20080181156 A1), hereinafter, Ecclesine.
Regarding claim 9:
He and Jung disclose all the limitations of claim 1 above, but fail to disclose wherein the receiver is configured to terminate the reception of the data packet before the data packet is entirely received.
However, Ecclesine discloses receiver (Fig. 1) is configured to terminate the reception of the data packet before the data packet is entirely received (Paragraph [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the receiver of He as modified by Jung, to terminate the reception of the data packet before the data packet is entirely received as disclosed by Ecclesine. It would have been obvious because Ecclesine’s teaching allows for power saving in the receiver (Paragraph [0028]).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jung.
Regarding claim 20:
Jung discloses a transmitter (Fig. 2A), but the embodiment does not disclose wherein the transmitter is a Frequency-Shift Keying (FSK) transmitter.
However, in a second embodiment, Jung discloses using Gaussian frequency shift keying modulation (Paragraph [0076]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have Jung’s transmitter be an FSK transmitter as disclosed by a second embodiment of Jung. It would have been obvious so as to have a transmitter with a Bluetooth protocol to communicate with a wifi device.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINEETA S PANWALKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5pm. 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, David C. Payne can be reached at 571-272-3024. 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.
/VINEETA S PANWALKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635