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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites “perform one of the first operation or the second operation in accordance with the first priority level and the second priority level and based at least in part on transmitting the message.” However, nothing has been found in the specification that describes that the performance of an operation is in any manner conditional upon transmitting a status message. Paragraph [0179] appears to be the most relevant portion, and it only describes that a higher priority operation is received while another operation is being performed and the operation being performed is aborted and the higher priority operation is performed, but does not describe that the performance of an operation (e.g., operation 1 or operation 2) is based on transmission of any status message. In other words, there is no conditional relationship between the performance of the operations and transmission of status message described in the specification, but the limitation as recited does indicate such a conditional relationship with "based at least in part transmitting the message." Therefore, claim 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 29 recites similar limitations as claim 1, and at least for the abovementioned reasons, claim 29 1 contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
For examination purposes, the abovementioned limitation of claim 1, similar limitation of claim 29, has been construed as "perform/[performing] one of the first operation or the second operation in accordance with the first priority level and the second priority level" without any conditional relationship between the performance and transmission of the status message.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 5-11, 13-20, 22-26, 29, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boldyrev et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0321118 A1) in view of Drago et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0165007 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Boldyrev teaches “[a]n apparatus for wireless communication at a passive device, comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to:” (see ¶¶ [ [0050]-[0052], and FIG. 3; end device includes end memory tag (i.e., an apparatus for wireless communication at a passive device) and also includes processors, control manager, and memory to manage interactions such as data transfer between the end device and the UE as well as the data writer and/or the data provider (i.e., a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor)),
Boldyrev further teaches “receive, from a first querying device, a first query associated with a first operation to be performed at the passive device, wherein the first operation is associated with a first priority level and comprises a first write operation, a first read operation, or both” (see ¶¶ [0047], [0052], [0053], and [0054]; for the communication access between the end device including a passive memory tag (i.e., the passive device) and other devices receives a request for data (i.e., one of the devices being a first querying device) and the access manager of the end device may set the communication policy to restrict the communication access to read only (RO) or to broaden the communication access to read, write and execute (RWX) (i.e., a first query associated with a first operation to be performed at the passive device, wherein the first operation comprises a first write operation, a first read operation, or both); a priority is determined for the request based on the request (i.e., wherein the first operation is associated with a first priority level); thus, a first query associated with a first operation to be performed at the passive device, wherein the first operation is associated with a first priority level and comprises a first write operation, a first read operation, or both);
Boldyrev also teaches “receive, from the first querying device or a second querying device, a second query associated with a second operation to be performed at the passive device, wherein the second operation is associated with a second priority level and comprises a second write operation, a second read operation, or both” (see ¶¶ [0047], [0052], [0053], and [0054]; for the communication access between the end device including a passive memory tag (i.e., the passive device) and other devices receives a request for data (i.e., one of the devices being a second querying device) and the access manager of the end device may set the communication policy to restrict the communication access to read only (RO) or to broaden the communication access to read, write and execute (RWX) (i.e., a second query associated with a second operation to be performed at the passive device, wherein the first second comprises a first write operation, a second read operation, or both); a priority is determined for the request based on the request (i.e., wherein the second operation is associated with a corresponding priority level (second priority level));
Boldyrev further teaches “perform one of the first operation or the second operation in accordance with the first priority level and the second priority level and based at least in part on transmitting the message” (see ¶ [0048]; [NOTE: as described above with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 112(a), the foregoing limitation has been construed as “perform one of the first operation or the second operation in accordance with the first priority level and the second priority level” without any conditional relationship between the performance and transmission of the status message]; the communicator of the passive end device manages various types of communication with other devices such as the UE, the data writer and the data provider, as well as communication within the end device (e.g. between the components within the end device); the communicator may be used to manage communication between the end memory tag 117 and other memory tags including the UE memory tag 109, the writer memory tag 125 and the data memory tag 131; the communicator may also consider the priority order for communication and perform communication in the order of the priority; for example, the priority of the data for transfer may be determined by the source of the data, wherein the priority level is high for the local storage as a data source, medium for the data writer 119 as the data source, and low for the data provider 127 as the data source; then, the data of the high priority will be transferred first and the data of the low priority will be transferred last (i.e., perform one of the first operation or the second operation in accordance with the first priority level and the second priority level)).
Boldyrev also describes the passive device performing various types of communication with different devices (e.g., corresponding querying devices), one of which can be a message indicating a status of an operation to a device. (¶ [0048] of Boldyrev). Indeed, Boldyrev even describes a UI of the passive device displaying a status of a communication with another device. (¶ [0046 of Boldyrev). In other words, Boldyrev describes the passive end device determining the status of an operation and at the very least internally communicating it with different parts of the device.
But Boldyrev does not explicitly disclose “transmit, to the first querying device, the second querying device, or both, a message indicating a status of the first operation, the second operation, or both” of claim 1. However, the foregoing limitations were well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Drago teaches “transmit, to the first querying device, the second querying device, or both, a message indicating a status of the first operation, the second operation, or both” (see ¶¶ [0040] and [0076]; tag may be passive; and tag receives a query from interrogator device (i.e., querying device), and provides, to the interrogator device (querying device) the status (i.e., a message indicating a status) of the operation associated with the received access command (i.e., of the first operation, the second operation, or both); thus, transmit, to the first querying device, the second querying device, or both, a message indicating a status of the first operation, the second operation, or both). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bodyrev to incorporate the teachings of Drago to transmit a status message associated with an operation to a querying device. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve efficiency of communicating status of operations (see ¶ [0007] of Drago).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches “receive the first priority level via the first query; and receive the second priority level via the second query, wherein transmitting the message is based at least in part on the first priority level, the second priority level, or both” (see ¶¶ [0046]-[0048] of Boldyrev; Boldyrev teaches passive end device receives content request from the UE (querying device) and manages retrieving of the content data from data sources according to the content requests (i.e., the first query and the second query) from the different devices; the data source associated with content requests indicates a priority level for the content request (i.e., receive the first priority level via the first query and receive the second priority level via the second query) based on which the passive device determines the order of the operation; the passive end device also considers the priority order for communication and performs communication in the order of the priority; Drago teaches transmitting a status message; thus, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches receive the first priority level via the first query; and receive the second priority level via the second query, wherein transmitting the message based at least in part on the first priority level, the second priority level, or both). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bodyrev to incorporate the teachings of Drago to transmit the message indicating the status based at least in part on the first priority level, the second priority level, or both. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve efficiency of communicating status of operations (see ¶ [0007] of Drago).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches “receive, from the first querying device, the second querying device, or an additional wireless device, control signaling indicating a priority configuration usable for determining priority levels associated with operations to be performed at the passive device; and determine the first priority level, the second priority level, or both, in accordance with the priority configuration, wherein transmitting the message, performing one of the first operation or the second operation, or both, is based at least in part on determining the first priority level, the second priority level, or both” (see ¶¶ [0039], [0048] and [0051] of Boldyrev; passive end device is configured to determine priority levels for content request based on a set of rules (i.e., determine the first priority level, the second priority level, or both, in accordance with the priority configuration), therefore, the passive end device is configured with a configuration for priority and passive end device receives various configuration via a reader (e.g., RFID reader); communication between the reader and tags occur wirelessly (i.e., receive from the first querying device, the second querying device, or an additional wireless device control signaling indicating a priority configuration usable for determining priority levels associated with operations to be performed at the passive device); the end device performs operation based on the determined priority and performs communication in the order of the priority, and Drago teaches transmitting a status message; thus, wherein transmitting the message, performing one of the first operation or the second operation, or both, is based at least in part on determining the first priority level, the second priority level, or both). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bodyrev to incorporate the teachings of Drago to transmit the status message at least in part on the first priority level, the second priority level, or both. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve efficiency of communicating status of operations (see ¶ [0007] of Drago).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 5, and further teaches “wherein the priority configuration includes one or more rules, one or more conditions, or both, for determining priority levels associated with operations to be performed at the passive device, wherein determining the first priority level, the second priority level, or both, is based at least in part on the one or more rules, the one or more conditions, or both” (see ¶ [0048] of Boldyrev; the end device is configured to determine priority for the operation in the content request based on data associated with the content request; for example, the priority of the data for transfer may be determined by the source of the data (i.e., priority configuration includes one or more rules, one or more conditions, or both, for determining priority levels associated with operations to be performed at the passive device), wherein the priority level is high for the local storage as a data source, medium for the data writer as the data source, and low for the data provider as the data source (i.e., wherein determining the first priority level, the second priority level, or both, is based at least in part on the one or more rules, the one or more conditions, or both)).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein the first priority level is based at least in part on a first operation type associated with the first operation, and wherein the second priority level is based at least in part on a second operation type associated with the second operation” (see ¶ [0048] of Boldyrev; Boldyrev teaches passive end device determining priority levels (i.e., the first priority level and the second priority level) for content requests (i.e., associated with the first operation and associated with the second operation) from devices based on, for example, where a priority level for a content request for retrieving data (first operation type) from data provider is lower than a content request for writing data (second operation type) to a data writer (i.e., based at least in part on a first operation type associated with the first operation and based at least in part on a second operation type associated with the second operation)).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein the second query is received from the second querying device, and wherein the first priority level is based at least in part on a first identifier associated with the first querying device, and wherein the second priority level is based at least in part on a second identifier associated with the second querying device” (see ¶¶ [0029], [0030], and [0048] of Boldyrev; passive end device determines access policies (e.g., read only or read and write access) based on the devices sending content requests (i.e., a first identifier associated with the first querying device the first querying device and a second identifier associated with the second querying device) and determines priorities for the requests based on the access policy associated with the devices and content requests (i.e., based at least in part on a first identifier and based at least in part on a second identifier); thus, the second query is received from the second querying device, and wherein the first priority level is based at least in part on a first identifier associated with the first querying device, and wherein the second priority level is based at least in part on a second identifier associated with the second querying device).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches “transmit the message to at least the second querying device based at least in part on the first priority level being greater than the second priority level, wherein the message comprises an indication that the passive device is busy performing the first operation” (see ¶ [0048] of Boldyrev and ¶ [0066] of Drago; Boldyrev teaches passive end device performs operations based on priority, for example, a priority of a writing operation (e.g., first priority level associated with first operation) can be greater than a priority of a reading operation (e.g., second priority level associated with second operation), and Drago teaches passive tag transmitting status message that the tag is busy performing an operation (i.e., the message comprises an indication that the passive device is busy performing the first operation); thus, transmit the message to at least the second querying device based at least in part on the first priority level being greater than the second priority level, wherein the message comprises an indication that the passive device is busy performing the first operation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bodyrev to incorporate the teachings of Drago to transmit the status message at least in part on the first priority level being greater than the second priority level and indicating that the passive device is busy performing operations of the first priority level. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve efficiency of communicating status of operations (see ¶ [0007] of Drago).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches “transmit the message to at least the first querying device based at least in part on the first priority level being less than the second priority level, wherein the message comprises an indication that the passive device has received the second query for the second operation having a higher priority than the first operation” (see ¶¶ [0032] and [0048] of Boldyrev and ¶ [0066] of Drago; Boldyrev teaches passive end device performs operations based on priority of operations, where a priority of one operation is less than the priority of another operation (i.e., the first priority level being less than the second priority level) and communicates with querying device based on priority; and Drago teaches passive tag transmitting status message that it is busy performing an operation for one device when it receives a query from another device; the message indicating it is busy is also an indication that the passive device has received the second query for the second operation having a higher priority than the first operation; thus the combination teaches transmit the message to at least the first querying device based at least in part on the first priority level being less than the second priority level, wherein the message comprises an indication that the passive device has received the second query for the second operation having a higher priority than the first operation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bodyrev to incorporate the teachings of Drago to transmit the status message at least in part on the first priority level being greater than the second priority level and indicating that the passive device is busy performing operations of the first priority level. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve efficiency of communicating status of operations (see ¶ [0007] of Drago).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches “transmit, via the message, an indication of the first priority level, the second priority level, a first operation type associated with the first operation, a second operation type associated with the second operation, a first identifier associated with the first querying device, a second identifier associated with the second querying device, or any combination thereof” (see ¶¶ [0054] and [0066] of Drago; the passive tag transmits status message indicating whether the operation is successful or not, for example, a response that indicates whether the write operation (i.e., operation type) was successful or unsuccessful, or that the tag is busy completing an operation (i.e., a first operation type associated with the first operation, a second operation type associated with the second operation); thus, transmit, via the message, an indication of the first priority level, the second priority level, a first operation type associated with the first operation, a second operation type associated with the second operation, a first identifier associated with the first querying device, a second identifier associated with the second querying device, or any combination thereof). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bodyrev to incorporate the teachings of Drago to transmit the status message to indicate an operation type associated with the operation. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve efficiency of communicating status of operations (see ¶ [0007] of Drago).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches “transmit a plurality of messages in accordance with a periodicity, the plurality of messages associated with a queue of operations to be performed by the passive device, the plurality of messages including the message indicating the status of the first operation, the second operation, or both” (see ¶¶ [0067] and [0076]; interrogator may be required to hop to another frequency after a given time, i.e., a maximum dwell time, (e.g., every 400 ms (periodicity) as required by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)), in such an embodiment, the interrogator may issue status request commands for all queued commands issued (i.e., with a queue of operations to be performed by the passive device) while the interrogator has dwelled (i.e., the periodicity) at a current frequency before hopping to another frequency; the passive tag provides a response to the status request command is transmitted (e.g., backscattered) that provides the status of the operation associated with the received access command, and the passive tag would perform this for every status request command the interrogator transmits, thus in accordance with a periodicity at which it receives the requests; therefore, the passive tag transmits a plurality of messages in accordance with a periodicity, the plurality of messages associated with a queue of operations to be performed by the passive device, the plurality of messages including the message indicating the status of the first operation, the second operation, or both). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bodyrev to incorporate the teachings of Drago to transmit a plurality of status messages, where the messages are transmitted in accordance with a periodicity. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve efficiency of communicating status of operations (see ¶ [0007] of Drago).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 13, and further teaches “receive a plurality of signals in accordance with the periodicity, wherein transmitting the plurality of messages is based at least in part on receiving the plurality of signals” (see ¶¶ [0067] and [0076]; interrogator may be required to hop to another frequency after a given time, i.e., a maximum dwell time, (e.g., every 400 ms (periodicity) as required by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)), in such an embodiment, the interrogator may issue status request commands (i.e., a plurality of signals) for all queued commands issued while the interrogator has dwelled (i.e., the periodicity) at a current frequency before hopping to another frequency (i.e., receive a plurality of signals in accordance with the periodicity); the passive tag provides a response to the status request command is transmitted (e.g., backscattered) that provides the status of the operation associated with the received access command, and the passive tag would perform this for every status request command the interrogator transmits (i.e., transmitting the plurality of messages is based at least in part on receiving the plurality of signals); thus, receive a plurality of signals in accordance with the periodicity, wherein transmitting the plurality of messages is based at least in part on receiving the plurality of signals). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bodyrev to incorporate the teachings of Drago to transmit a plurality of status messages based in part on receiving the plurality of signals. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve efficiency of communicating status of operations (see ¶ [0007] of Drago).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein the message comprises an indication that the passive device is busy performing the first operation, and the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, from the second querying device and in response to the message, a request for an identifier associated with the first querying device; and transmit a second message to the second querying device based at least in part on receiving the request, the second message indicating the identifier associated with the first querying device” (see ¶¶ [0029], [0030], and [0048] of Boldyrev and ¶ [0066] of Drago; Boldyrev teaches passive end device performs operations based on priority, for example, a priority of a writing operation (e.g., first priority level associated with first operation) can be greater than a priority of a reading operation (e.g., second priority level associated with second operation) and passive end device determines access policies (e.g., read only or read and write access) based on the devices sending content requests, and Drago teaches passive tag transmitting status message that the tag is busy performing an operation (i.e., the message comprises an indication that the passive device is busy performing the first operation); thus, wherein the message comprises an indication that the passive device is busy performing the first operation, and the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, from the second querying device and in response to the message, a request for an identifier associated with the first querying device; and transmit a second message to the second querying device based at least in part on receiving the request, the second message indicating the identifier associated with the first querying device).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein performing one of the first operation or the second operation comprises performing the first operation at a first time, and the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: perform the second operation at a second time subsequent to the first time based at least in part on the second priority level being less than the first priority level” (see ¶ [0048] of Boldyrev; Boldyrev teaches passive end device performs operations based on priority, for example, a priority of a writing operation (e.g., first priority level associated with first operation) can be greater than a priority of a reading operation (e.g., second priority level associated with second operation) and the passive end device performs the writing operation before (i.e., wherein performing one of the first operation or the second operation comprises performing the first operation at a first time) the reading operation (i.e., perform the second operation at a second time subsequent to the first time based at least in part on the second priority level being less than the first priority level); thus, wherein performing one of the first operation or the second operation comprises performing the first operation at a first time, and the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: perform the second operation at a second time subsequent to the first time based at least in part on the second priority level being less than the first priority level).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches “adjust one or more operational parameters at the passive device” (see ¶ [0052] of Boldyrev; passive device receives a write operation in a content request and a control channel may be established between the sources and the end device to exchange information about access policy and management for transfer (i.e., one or more operational parameters at the passive device) of content data, as well as content update (i.e., adjust one or more operational parameters); thus, adjust one or more operational parameters at the passive device).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein the instructions to perform one of the first read operation or the second read operation are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit a data message to the first querying device, the second querying device, or both” (see ¶ [0048] of Boldyrev; the passive end device transfers the requested data (i.e., transmit a data message) to the querying devices (i.e., the first querying device, the second querying device, or both); thus, transmit a data message to the first querying device, the second querying device, or both).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 1 and further teaches “wherein the passive device comprises a radio frequency identifier tag, a passive component of a wireless device, or both, and wherein the first querying device, the second querying device, or both, comprise a user equipment (UE), a network entity, or both” (see ¶ [0034]; the end device may act as a passive end point that is turned off without power or an active end point with power on (i.e., the passive device comprises a radio frequency identifier tag, a passive component of a wireless device, or both); UE sends content requests (i.e., the first querying device, the second querying device, or both, comprise a user equipment (UE), a network entity, or both); thus, wherein the passive device comprises a radio frequency identifier tag, a passive component of a wireless device, or both, and wherein the first querying device, the second querying device, or both, comprise a user equipment (UE), a network entity, or both).
Regarding claim 20, Boldyrev teaches “[a]n apparatus for wireless communication at a querying device, comprising: a processor; memory coupled with the processor; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: transmit, to a passive device, a first query associated with a first operation to be performed at the passive device, wherein the first operation is associated with a first priority level and comprises a first write operation, a first read operation, or both” (see ¶¶ [0047], [0052], [0053], and [0054]; for the communication access between the end device including a passive memory tag (i.e., the passive device) and other devices receives a request for data (i.e., one of the devices being a first querying device) and the access manager of the end device may set the communication policy to restrict the communication access to read only (RO) or to broaden the communication access to read, write and execute (RWX) (i.e., a first query associated with a first operation to be performed at the passive device, wherein the first operation comprises a first write operation, a first read operation, or both); a priority is determined for the request based on the request (i.e., wherein the first operation is associated with a first priority level); thus, a first query associated with a first operation to be performed at the passive device, wherein the first operation is associated with a first priority level and comprises a first write operation, a first read operation, or both);
Boldyrev also describes the passive device performing various types of communication with different devices (e.g., corresponding querying devices), one of which can be a message indicating a status of an operation to a device. (¶ [0048] of Boldyrev). Indeed, Boldyrev even describes a UI of the passive device displaying a status of a communication with another device. (¶ [0046 of Boldyrev). In other words, Boldyrev describes the passive end device determining the status of an operation and at the very least internally communicating it with different parts of the device.
But Boldyrev does not explicitly disclose “receive, from the passive device based at least in part on the first query, a message indicating a status of the first operation, a second operation associated with a second priority level, or both, wherein the status is based at least in part on the first priority level, the second priority level or both, and wherein the second operation comprises a second write operation, a second read operation, or both” of claim 1. However, the foregoing limitations were well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Drago teaches “receive, from the passive device based at least in part on the first query, a message indicating a status of the first operation, a second operation associated with a second priority level, or both, wherein the status is based at least in part on the first priority level, the second priority level or both, and wherein the second operation comprises a second write operation, a second read operation, or both” (see ¶¶ [0040] and [0076]; tag may be passive; and tag receives a query from interrogator device (i.e., querying device), and provides, to the interrogator device (querying device) the status (i.e., a message indicating a status) of the operation associated with the received access command (i.e., of the first operation, the second operation, or both); thus, receive, to the first querying device, the second querying device, or both, a message indicating a status of the first operation, the second operation, or both, wherein the status is based at least in part on the first priority level, the second priority level or both, and wherein the second operation comprises a second write operation, a second read operation, or both). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bodyrev to incorporate the teachings of Drago to transmit a status message associated with an operation to a querying device. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve efficiency of communicating status of operations (see ¶ [0007] of Drago).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 20 and teaches “transmit the first priority level via the first query, wherein receiving the message is based at least in part on the first priority level” (see ¶¶ [0046]-[0048] of Boldyrev; Boldyrev teaches passive end device receives content request from the UE (querying device) and manages retrieving of the content data from data sources according to the content requests (i.e., the first query and the second query) from the different devices; the data source associated with content requests indicates a priority level for the content request (i.e., transmit the first priority level via the first query and transmit the second priority level via the second query) based on which the passive device determines the order of the operation; the passive end device also considers the priority order for communication and performs communication in the order of the priority; Drago teaches receiving a status message; thus, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches transmit the first priority level via the first query, wherein receiving the message is based at least in part on the first priority level). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bodyrev to incorporate the teachings of Drago to transmit priority and receive the message indicating the status based at least in part on the first priority level. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve efficiency of communicating status of operations (see ¶ [0007] of Drago).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 20 and teaches “wherein the first priority level is based at least in part on the first operation comprising the first write operation or the first read operation, and wherein the second priority level is based at least in part on the second operation comprising the second write operation or the second read operation, or wherein the first priority level is based at least in part on a first operation type associated with the first operation, and wherein the second priority level is based at least in part on a second operation type associated with the second operation” (see ¶ [0048] of Boldyrev; Boldyrev teaches passive end device determining priority levels (i.e., the first priority level and the second priority level) for content requests (i.e., associated with the first operation and associated with the second operation) from devices based on, for example, where a priority level for a content request for retrieving data (first operation type) from data provider is lower than a content request for writing data (second operation type) to a data writer (i.e., based at least in part on a first operation type associated with the first operation and based at least in part on a second operation type associated with the second operation); thus, wherein the first priority level is based at least in part on the first operation comprising the first write operation or the first read operation, and wherein the second priority level is based at least in part on the second operation comprising the second write operation or the second read operation, or wherein the first priority level is based at least in part on a first operation type associated with the first operation, and wherein the second priority level is based at least in part on a second operation type associated with the second operation).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 20 and teaches “transmit, to the passive device, control signaling indicating a priority configuration usable for determining priority levels associated with operations to be performed at the passive device, wherein receiving the message is based at least in part on the priority configuration” (see ¶¶ [0039], [0048] and [0051] of Boldyrev and ¶ [0076] of Drago; passive end device is configured to determine priority levels for content request based on a set of rules, therefore, the passive end device is configured with a configuration for priority and passive end device receives various configurations via a reader (e.g., reader at a querying device such as UE (the apparatus)); communication between the and tags occur wirelessly (i.e., transmit, to the passive device, control signaling indicating a priority configuration usable for determining priority levels associated with operations to be performed at the passive device); the end device performs operation based on the determined priority and performs communication in the order of the priority, and Drago teaches receiving a status message from the passive tag; therefore, wherein receiving the message is based at least in part on the priority configuration; thus, transmit, to the passive device, control signaling indicating a priority configuration usable for determining priority levels associated with operations to be performed at the passive device, wherein receiving the message is based at least in part on the priority configuration). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bodyrev to incorporate the teachings of Drago to transmit control signaling indicating a priority configuration and receiving a status message based on the priority configuration. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve efficiency of communicating status of operations (see ¶ [0007] of Drago).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 20 and teaches “receive the message from the passive device based at least in part on the first priority level being less than the second priority level, wherein the message comprises an indication that the second operation has a higher priority than the first operation” (see ¶¶ [0032] and [0048] of Boldyrev and ¶ [0076] of Drago; Boldyrev teaches passive end device performs operations based on priority of operations, where a priority of one operation is less than the priority of another operation (i.e., the first priority level being less than the second priority level) and communicates with querying device based on priority; and Drago teaches passive tag transmitting status message that it is busy performing an operation for one device when it receives a query from another device; the message indicating it is busy is also an indication that the second operation has a higher priority than the first operation; therefore, the combination teaches receive the message from the passive device based at least in part on the first priority level being less than the second priority level, wherein the message comprises an indication that the second operation has a higher priority than the first operation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bodyrev to incorporate the teachings of Drago to receive a status message at least in part on a first priority level being greater than a second priority level and indicating that the passive device is busy performing operations of the higher first priority level. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve efficiency of communicating status of operations (see ¶ [0007] of Drago).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 20 and teaches “receive the message from the passive device based at least in part on the first priority level being less than the second priority level, wherein the message comprises an indication that the second operation has a higher priority than the first operation, wherein the second operation is associated with a second querying device” (see ¶¶ [0032] and [0048] of Boldyrev and ¶ [0076] of Drago; Boldyrev teaches passive end device performs operations based on priority of operations associated with content requests(including a first operation and a second operation) received from different devices (i.e., a first querying device and a second querying device, and wherein the second operation is associated with a second querying device), where a priority of one operation is less than the priority of another operation (i.e., the first priority level being less than the second priority level) and communicates with querying device based on priority; and Drago teaches passive tag transmitting status message that it is busy performing an operation for one device when it receives a query from another device (the second operation is associated with a second querying device); the message indicating it is busy is also an indication that the second operation has a higher priority than the first operation, wherein the second operation is associated with a second querying device; therefore, the combination teaches receive the message from the passive device based at least in part on the first priority level being less than the second priority level, wherein the message comprises an indication that the second operation has a higher priority than the first operation, wherein the second operation is associated with a second querying device). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bodyrev to incorporate the teachings of Drago to receive a status message at least in part on a priority level of an operation being greater than a priority level of another device and indicating that the passive device is busy performing operations of with a higher priority level. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve efficiency of communicating status of operations (see ¶ [0007] of Drago).
Regarding claim 29, it is a method claim corresponding to claim 1 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 1. Claim 29 is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 30, it is a method claim corresponding to claim 20 that has been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claim 20. Claim 30 is rejected under the same rationale
Claims 3, 4, 12, 15, 21, 27, 28, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boldyrev in view of Drago and further in view of La Fratta et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2019/0317693 A1).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein the first priority level is based at least in part on the first operation . . . , and wherein the second priority level is based at least in part on the second operation” (see ¶¶ [0046]-[0048] of Boldyrev; Boldyrev teaches passive end device determines priority level based on the content request from querying devices (i.e., wherein the first priority level is based at least in part on the first operation and wherein the second priority level is based at least in part on the second operation)).
The combination of Boldyrev and Drago does not explicitly disclose that a priority level of an operation is dependent on whether the operation is a “write operation” or a “read operation.” However, priority levels being dependent on whether an operation is a write or a read operation was well known in art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, La Fratta teaches a first priority level is based at least in part on the first operation “comprising the first write operation” and a second priority level is based at least in part on the second operation “comprising the second read operation” (see ¶¶ [0038] and [0039]; read command has a priority level and a write command has another priority level; thus, a first priority level is based at least in part on the first operation comprising the first write operation and second priority level is based at least in part on the second operation comprising the second read operation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bodyrev in view of Drago to incorporate the teachings of La Fratta to have priority level of an operation based on operation being a write operation or a read operation. The suggestion to do so would have been to enhance performance of a computing device by improving scheduling policies for performing read/write operations (see ¶ [0004] of La Fratta).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Boldyrev, Drago, and La Fratta teaches the apparatus of claim 3, and further teaches “prioritize the first operation over the second read operation based at least in part on the first priority level being greater than the second priority level, wherein transmitting the message is based at least in part on the prioritizing, and wherein performing one of the first operation or the second operation comprises performing the first operation based at least in part on the prioritizing” (see ¶ [0048] of Boldyrev, ¶ [0076] of Drago, and ¶ [0039] of La Fratta; Boldyrev teaches passive end device performs operations (i.e., first operation can be RWX (i.e., comprises a write operation) second operation can be a RO (read) operation) based on priority; for example performs data operation of transferring data based on priority, where data of high priority is transferred first and data of low priority is transferred after (i.e., prioritize the first operation over the second read operation based at least in part on the first priority level being greater than the second priority level and wherein performing one of the first operation or the second operation comprises performing the first operation based at least in part on the prioritizing); the end device also identifies the priority order for communication and performs communication in the order of the priority; Drago teaches passive tag provides, to the interrogator device the status (transmitting the message) of the operation; La Fratta teaches a write operation can have a higher priority than a read operation; thus prioritizing the first operation over the second read operation based at least in part on the first priority level being greater than the second priority level, wherein transmitting the message is based at least in part on the prioritizing, and wherein performing one of the first operation or the second operation comprises performing the first operation based at least in part on the prioritizing)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bodyrev in view of Drago to incorporate the teachings of La Fratta to prioritize write operation over a read operation and transmit status message of an operation based on priority. The suggestion to do so would have been to enhance performance of a computing device by improving scheduling policies for performing read/write operations (see ¶ [0004] of La Fratta).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein the second query is received from the first querying device, and the instructions are further executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to: receive, via the second query, an instruction . . . to perform the second operation, wherein the passive device performs the second operation based at least in part on the instruction” (see ¶¶ [0046]-[0048] of Boldyrev teaches passive end device determines priority level based on the content request (i.e., receive, via the second query, an instruction) from querying devices and performs the operation based on the priority level (i.e., receive, via the second query, an instruction to perform the second operation, wherein the passive device performs the second operation based at least in part on the instruction)). The combination of Boldyrev and Drago does not explicitly disclose receiving an instruction “to stop the first operation” of claim 12.
However, stopping an operation and starting another operation or preempting an operation with another operation was well known in art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, La Fratta teaches preempting an earlier received operation and performing another operation based on a receiving a query that instructs “to stop the first operation” (see ¶ [0038]; device receives command to give priority over previously received (e.g., “older”) write commands in order to reduce read latency; therefore, device stops the write commands from being successfully executed and performs the read command; thus, device receives a query that instructs “to stop the first operation” and performs the second operation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bodyrev in view of Drago to incorporate the teachings of La Fratta to have a query instruct passive device to stop an operation and perform another operation. The suggestion to do so would have been to enhance performance of a computing device by improving scheduling policies for performing read/write operations (see ¶ [0004] of La Fratta).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 20 and teaches “receive, from the passive device, a second message comprising an indicator associated with a second querying device . . . ; and transmitting, to the second querying device based at least in part on the second message, a third message indicating the request for the second querying device” (see ¶¶ [0029], [0030], [0032], [0044], [0046], and [0048] of Boldyrev and ¶ [0066] of Drago; Boldyrev teaches passive end device performs operations based on based on the devices sending content requests and associated priority, for example, a priority of a writing operation can be greater than a priority of a reading operation and passive end device determines access policies (e.g., read only or read and write access); Boldyrev further teaches passive end device communicates with querying devices comprising information of sending device (i.e., a second querying device) and a target device to which the passive end device transmits the message; thus, receive, from the passive device, a second message comprising an indicator associated with a second querying device; and Boldyrev teaches UE (apparatus) transmitting content request (i.e., a third message indicating the request) with a target device (i.e., the second querying device); UE may transmit a subsequent content request based on data from another device received via passive end device (e.g., based at least in part on the second message); thus transmitting, to the second querying device based at least in part on the second message, a third message indicating the request for the second querying device).
The combination of Boldyrev and Drago does not explicitly teach “a request to stop an operation to be performed at the passive device that was initiated by the second querying device” and a message “to stop the operation initiated by the second querying device” of claim 21. However, receiving a message comprising “a request to stop an operation to be performed at the passive device that was initiated by the second querying device” and transmitting “to stop the operation initiated by the second querying device” was well known in art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, La Fratta teaches receiving and transmitting a request preempting an earlier received operation and performing another operation based on a receiving a query that is “a request to stop an operation to be performed at the passive device that was initiated by the second querying device” and transmitting message “to stop the operation initiated by the second querying device” (see ¶ [0038]; device receives command to give priority over previously received (e.g., “older”) write commands in order to reduce read latency; therefore, device stops the write commands from being successfully executed and performs the read command; therefore, device receives a request to stop an operation to be performed at the passive device that was initiated by the second querying device and the command is also transmitted from a source device, accordingly transmitting message to stop the operation initiated by the second querying device). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bodyrev in view of Drago to incorporate the teachings of La Fratta to receive a message comprising an indicator associated with a querying device and a request initiated by the querying device to stop an operation, at the passive device, to be performed, from the passive device, and also to transmit a message to the querying device indicating the request to stop operation to be performed at the passive device. The suggestion to do so would have been to enhance performance of a computing device by improving scheduling policies for performing read/write operations (see ¶ [0004] of La Fratta).
Regarding claim 27, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 26 and teaches “transmit, to the passive device and in response to the message, a request for an identifier associated with the second querying device; receive a second message from the passive device based at least in part on transmitting the request, the second message indicating the identifier associated with the second querying device; and transmit a third message to the second querying device based at least in part on receiving the second message, the third message comprising a second request for the second querying device to stop the second operation” (see ¶¶ [0029], [0030], [0032], [0044], [0046], and [0048] of Boldyrev and ¶ [0066] of Drago; Boldyrev teaches passive end device performs operations based on based on the devices sending content requests and associated priority, for example, a priority of a writing operation can be greater than a priority of a reading operation and passive end device determines access policies (e.g., read only or read and write access); Boldyrev further teaches passive end device receives requests/communications from querying devices comprising information of sending device and a target device (i.e., an identifier associated with the second querying device) to which the passive end device transmits the message; thus, transmit, to the passive device and in response to the message, a request for an identifier associated with the second querying device; Boldyrev further teaches passive end communicating with the querying device and Drago teaches and Boldyrev teaches UE (apparatus) transmitting content request (i.e., a third message indicating the request) with a target device (i.e., the second querying device); therefore, transmit a third message to the second querying device based at least in part on receiving the second message, the third message comprising a second request for the second querying device); Drago teaches passive tag transmitting status message that it is busy performing an operation for one device when it receives a query from another device (i.e., receive a second message from the passive device based at least in part on transmitting the request, the second message indicating the identifier associated with the second querying device); UE may transmit a subsequent content request based on data from another device received via passive end device (e.g., based at least in part on the second message); thus transmitting, to the second querying device based at least in part on the second message, a third message indicating the request for the second querying device).
The combination of Boldyrev and Drago does not explicitly teach “to stop the second operation” of claim 27. However, transmitting a message comprising “to stop the second operation” was well known in art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, La Fratta teaches transmitting a message comprising a request “to stop the second operation” (see ¶ [0038]; receiving device receives command to give priority over previously received commands (e.g., write commands); therefore, receiving device stops previously received commands from being successfully executed and performs the newer command; thus, transmitting device transmits a message comprising a request to stop the second operation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bodyrev in view of Drago to incorporate the teachings of La Fratta to transmit a message to stop an operation. The suggestion to do so would have been to enhance performance of a computing device by improving scheduling policies for performing read/write operations (see ¶ [0004] of La Fratta).
Regarding claim 28, the combination of Boldyrev and Drago teaches the apparatus of claim 20, and further teaches “transmit, to the passive device, a second query associated with the second operation, wherein the second query comprises an instruction for the passive device” (see ¶ [0048] of Boldyrev; Boldyrev teaches UE transmitting to the passive end device (i.e., transmit to the passive device) content requests (i.e., a second query associated with the second operation) and the passive end device performs operations based on the content request (i.e., wherein the second query comprises an instruction for the passive device).
The combination of Boldyrev and Drago does not explicitly disclose the query comprises an instruction “to stop the first operation and to perform the second operation” of claim 28. However, the foregoing limitations were well known in art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, La Fratta teaches transmitting a query comprising an instruction “to stop the first operation and to perform the second operation” (see ¶¶ [0038] and [0039]; receiving device receives command to give priority over previously received commands; therefore, receiving device stops previously received commands from being successfully executed and performs the newer command; thus, transmitting device transmits a query comprising an instruction to stop the first operation and to perform the second operation). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Bodyrev in view of Drago to incorporate the teachings of La Fratta to transmit a query comprising an instruction to stop an operation and perform another operation. The suggestion to do so would have been to enhance performance of a computing device by improving scheduling policies for performing read/write operations (see ¶ [0004] of La Fratta).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hoshina (U.S. Publication No. 2008/0061945 A1) teaches passive tag receiving requests for operations and transmitting responses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY whose telephone number is (571)272-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 EST.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/HASHIM S BHATTI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
