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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/22/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, on pages 6-7, with respect to priority, claim objections, and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive. The claim objections and 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 7, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-5 and 10-14 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Perkins (US 20200337162 A1).
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 10, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dory (US 20180020494 A1) in view of Perkins (US 20200337162 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Dory discloses:
“A method for connecting an Internet of things (IoT) device to an IoT service and controlling, using a tag device, by an electronic device, the method comprising:” (See Fig. 2, wherein the Computing Device 100 corresponds to the “IoT device”, NFC Tag 142 corresponds to the “tag device,” and Second Device 200 corresponds to the “electronic device.”)
“establishing a … connection with the tag device; receiving basic information about the IoT device from the IoT device through the tag device;” ([¶ 0033]: “Method 400 includes transferring the data from the NFC tag to a second device, at 430.”; ([¶ 0034]: “For example, the data on the NFC tag may include location, identification, login credentials of the first device, communication protocols used by the first device, or any other information that may facilitate connectivity with the first device.”)
“discovering the IoT device using one of at least one discovery scheme based on the basic information; and” ([¶ 0034]: “Based on the data, the second device may send a connection request.” In light of the device first device being in discovery mode (see ¶ 28) this may reasonably be interpreted as a discovery process.)
“registering the discovered IoT device in the IoT service.” ([¶ 0026]: “Subsequently, the computing device 100 can establish a wireless connection with the second device 200 and execute the predefined mode 122 (e.g., data transfer, pairing, provide services, etc) with the second device 200 using the communication component 220.”)
Dory does not explicitly disclose that it is a “UWB” connection.
However, Perkins discloses the missing feature that it is a “UWB” connection ([¶ 0185]: “The tag may communicate with nearby devices by sending a periodic wireless beacon signal. The wireless beacon signal, which may be transmitted using a Bluetooth communication protocol, ultra-wideband communication protocol, or any other suitable protocol, may be detectable by any device that is monitoring that protocol (e.g., receiving communications via that protocol).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Dory and Perkins, to modify the connection as disclosed by Dory, to be UWB as disclosed by Perkins. The motivation for doing so is that it increases interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dory with Perkins to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Dory in view of Perkins discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Dory further discloses “further comprising transmitting network connection information for network connection to the IoT device through the tag device, wherein discovering the IoT device includes discovering the IoT device connected to the network using the network connection information, using a first discovery scheme among the at least one discovery scheme.” ([¶ 0033]: “Method 400 includes transferring the data from the NFC tag to a second device, at 430.”; ([¶ 0034]: “For example, the data on the NFC tag may include location, identification, login credentials of the first device, communication protocols used by the first device, or any other information that may facilitate connectivity with the first device.”)
Regarding claim 4, Dory in view of Perkins discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Dory further discloses “wherein an NFC connection is established between the tag device and the IoT device.” ([¶ 0018]: “NFC component 140 includes software, hardware, and/or firmware which can be utilized independently and/or in conjunction with the controller 120 to manage the NFC tag 142. For example, NFC component 140 houses the NFC tag 142 and may have the ability to program or reprogram the NFC tag 142 (i.e., write or rewrite data onto the NFC tag 142).”)
Claims 10, 11, and 13 are substantially similar to claims 1, 2, and 4, with the differences amounting to that claims 1, 2, and 4 are directed towards a method, while claims 10, 11, and 13 are directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by Dory in paragraphs 17 and 38. Thus, claims 10, 11, and 13 are rejected for substantially similar reasons to claims 1, 2, and 4.
Claim(s) 3, 5, 7, 12, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dory (US 20180020494 A1) in view of Perkins (US 20200337162 A1) and further in view of Walther (US 20220368668 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Dory in view of Perkins discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Dory in view of Perkins do not disclose “wherein the first discovery scheme is a domain name service (DNS)-service discovery (SD) discovery scheme.”
However, Walther discloses the missing feature “wherein the first discovery scheme is a domain name service (DNS)-service discovery (SD) discovery scheme.” ([¶ 0005]: “A method is thus provided for identifying network services in a network having at least one host which provides each network service with a network service identifier, having at least one Internet-of-Things sensor/actuator based on domain name system service discovery DNS-SD via a multicast domain name system mDNS. A domain name system service discovery DNS-SD compliant request for a network service or network service type is sent by a network subscriber (e.g., Internet-of-Things sensors/actuators) to a network having at least one host which provides network services. The host can itself represent an IoT device.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Dory, Perkins, and Walther to modify the discovery as disclosed by Dory, to be DNS SD as disclosed by Walther. The motivation for doing so is that it increases interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dory with Perkins and Walther to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Dory in view of Perkins and Walther discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Dory further discloses “further comprising receiving at least one UWB message from the tag device through the UWB connection.” ([¶ 0033]: “Method 400 includes transferring the data from the NFC tag to a second device, at 430.”; ([¶ 0034]: “For example, the data on the NFC tag may include location, identification, login credentials of the first device, communication protocols used by the first device, or any other information that may facilitate connectivity with the first device.” Wherein UWB is taught by Perkins as discussed in relation to the parent claim.)
Regarding claim 7, Dory in view of Perkins and Walther discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Dory does not explicitly disclose “further comprising updating by the electronic device, spatial information about the IoT device based on the at least one UWB message.”
However, Perkins discloses the missing feature that it is a “further comprising updating by the electronic device, spatial information about the IoT device based on the at least one UWB message.” ([¶ 0167]: “For example, a tag may include an antenna that emits a wireless signal or beacon that is detectable by another electronic device such as a smartphone. Using the detected wireless signal (and using localization techniques such as time of flight, received signal strength indication, triangulation, etc.), the smartphone may be able to determine the position of the tag relative to the smartphone, and, using an absolute location of the smartphone from a GPS, the absolute location of the tag as well.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Dory, Perkins, and Walther to modify the UWB message as disclosed by Dory, to be used for spatial information as disclosed by Walther. The motivation for doing so is that it allows the user to more easily determine where the device is (See Perkins ¶ 189). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dory with Perkins and Walther to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 12, 14, and 16 are substantially similar to claims 3, 5, and 7 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dory (US 20180020494 A1) in view of Perkins (US 20200337162 A1), Walther (US 20220368668 A1), and further in view of Lee (US 20210014844 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Dory in view of Perkins and Walther discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Dory in view of Perkins and Walther do not disclose “wherein the at least one UWB message is a UWB message for one-way ranging (OWR).”
However, Lee discloses the missing feature “wherein the at least one UWB message is a UWB message for one-way ranging (OWR).” ([¶ 0032]: “For the case in which the second communications channel 102 is a UWB channel, the IB control message may be a ranging control message (RCM) that specifies ranging parameters, such as the type of ranging (e.g., OWR, single-sided TWR, double-sided TWR, etc.), intervals including block and round intervals, and a number of ranging rounds.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Dory, Perkins, Walther, and Lee to modify the message as disclosed by Dory, to be ranging information as disclosed by Lee. The motivation for doing so is that it allows spatial determination. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dory with Perkins, Walther, and Lee to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Dory in view of Perkins and Walther and Lee discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Dory further discloses “wherein the UWB message for one-way ranging is a UWB advertisement message for advertisement, and wherein the UWB advertisement message includes basic information about the IoT device.” ([¶ 0185]: “As used herein, a beacon signal may correspond to an advertising packet of a suitable communications protocol, or any other suitable wireless data transmission packet or signal.”)
Claims 17-18 are substantially similar to claims 8-9 and are rejected for similar reasons.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 15 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 6, of the closest prior arts Dory (US 20180020494 A1) in view of Perkins (US 20200337162 A1) and further in view of Walther (US 20220368668 A1) disclose all the features of the parent claim. However, Dory in view of Perkins and further in view of Walther do not disclose “identifying a gesture of the electronic device based on the at least one UWB message; and transmitting a command to perform an operation corresponding to the gesture to the IoT device.” Dory in paragraph 881 discloses identifying a gesture of the tag based on the at least one UWB message; and transmitting a command to perform an operation corresponding to the gesture to the IoT device. However, identifying a gesture of the electronic device based on the at least one UWB message within the full context of the claims would not be obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art. The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 6 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claim 15 is similar to claim 6 and contains allowable subject matter for similar reasons.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (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 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights