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.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 1 and 10 recite the initialism UWB without reciting what it stands for.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-15 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 1-15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. In claim 1 and claim 15, the preambles are worded such that it is not clear how the different clauses relate to one another. For example, it is not clear what is “controlling” and what is being controlled.
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 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dory (US 20180020494 A1) in view of Cheng (US 20230283987 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, Cheng discloses the missing feature that it is a “UWB” connection ([¶ 0039]: “In some embodiments, the user device may include any suitable device including an NFC, RFID and/or UWB radio, including, e.g., passive, active and/or hybrid passive-active radio tags. As a result, an IoT device 101A-101E may detect and communication with a user device upon detection of the radio tag associated with the user device, such as, e.g., the NFC, RFID and/or UWB radio of a smartphone or smartwatch, or the NFC, RFID and/or UWB radio of a tracker device and/or smart card.”)
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 Cheng, to modify the connection as disclosed by Dory, to be UWB as disclosed by Cheng. The motivation for doing so is that it increases interoperability (see Cheng ¶ 39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dory with Cheng to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 2, Dory in view of Cheng 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 Cheng 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).”)
Regarding claim 10, Dory discloses:
“An electronic device for connecting an Internet of things (IoT) device to an IoT service and controlling, using a tag device, the electronic device 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.”)
“a transceiver; and a controller connected to the transceiver, wherein the controller is configured to:” ([¶ 0026]: “In certain examples, the data from the NFC tag 142 may trigger the activation of circuitry, software, and/or firmware in the second device 200 to search for the computing device 100, thus making it easy for the second device 200 to connect with the computing device 100.”)
“establish a … connection with the tag device; receive 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.”)
“discover 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.)
“register 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, Cheng discloses the missing feature that it is a “UWB” connection ([¶ 0039]: “In some embodiments, the user device may include any suitable device including an NFC, RFID and/or UWB radio, including, e.g., passive, active and/or hybrid passive-active radio tags. As a result, an IoT device 101A-101E may detect and communication with a user device upon detection of the radio tag associated with the user device, such as, e.g., the NFC, RFID and/or UWB radio of a smartphone or smartwatch, or the NFC, RFID and/or UWB radio of a tracker device and/or smart card.”)
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 Cheng, to modify the connection as disclosed by Dory, to be UWB as disclosed by Cheng. The motivation for doing so is that it increases interoperability (see Cheng ¶ 39). Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dory with Cheng to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 11, Dory in view of Cheng discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Dory further discloses “wherein the controller is further configured to: transmit network connection information for network connection to the IoT device through the tag device, and wherein discovering the IoT device includes: discover 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 14, Dory in view of Cheng discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Dory further discloses “wherein the controller is further configured to receive 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 Cheng as discussed in relation to the parent claim.)
Claim(s) 3, 5, 12, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dory (US 20180020494 A1) in view of Cheng (US 20230283987 A1) and further in view of Walther (US 20220368668 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Dory in view of Cheng discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Dory in view of Cheng 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, Cheng, 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 Cheng and Walther to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 5, Dory in view of Cheng 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 Cheng as discussed in relation to the parent claim.)
Regarding claim 12, Dory in view of Cheng discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Dory in view of Cheng 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, Cheng, 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 Cheng and Walther to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 13, Dory in view of Cheng and Walther 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).”)
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dory (US 20180020494 A1) in view of Cheng (US 20230283987 A1), Walther (US 20220368668 A1), and further in view of Lee (US 20210014844 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Dory in view of Cheng and Walther discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Dory in view of Cheng and Walther do not disclose “further comprising updating spatial information about the IoT device based on the at least one UWB message.”
However, Lee discloses the missing feature “further comprising updating spatial information about the IoT device based on the at least one UWB message.” ([¶ 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, Cheng, Walther, and Lee to modify the message as disclosed by Dory, to be spatial information as disclosed by Lee. The motivation for doing so is that it allows ranging. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Dory with Cheng, Walther, and Lee to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Dory in view of Cheng and Walther discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Dory in view of Cheng 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, Cheng, 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 Cheng, Walther, and Lee to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-9 and 15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 6, of the closest prior arts Dory (US 20180020494 A1) in view of Cheng (US 20230283987 A1) and further in view of Walther (US 20220368668 A1) disclose all the features of the parent claim. However, Dory (US 20180020494 A1) in view of Cheng (US 20230283987 A1) 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.” 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.
Regarding claim 7, of the closest prior arts Dory (US 20180020494 A1) in view of Cheng (US 20230283987 A1) and further in view of Walther (US 20220368668 A1) disclose all the features of the parent claim. However, Dory in view of Cheng and further in view of Walther do not disclose “further comprising updating spatial information about the IoT device based on the at least one UWB message.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 7 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Regarding claim 9, of the closest prior arts Dory (US 20180020494 A1) in view of Cheng (US 20230283987 A1), Walther (US 20220368668 A1), and Lee (US 20210014844 A1)disclose all the features of the parent claim. However, Dory in view of Cheng, Walther, and Lee do not disclose “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.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 9 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
Regarding claim 15, of the closest prior arts Dory (US 20180020494 A1) in view of Cheng (US 20230283987 A1) and further in view of Walther (US 20220368668 A1) disclose all the features of the parent claim. However, Dory (US 20180020494 A1) in view of Cheng (US 20230283987 A1) 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.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 15 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination.
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