DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/17/24 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-3, 7-9, 12-18, 22-24 and 27-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN et al. (US Patent Publication 2017/0373804 herein after referenced as Han).
Regarding claim 1 and claim 15, Han discloses:
An apparatus for wireless communication at a wireless node, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to: and A method of wireless communication at a wireless node, comprising: transmit (Han, Fig. 25A & [0329] discloses As shown in FIG. 25A, the M2M/IoT/WoT communication system 10 (i.e. reads on Internet of Things IoT) may include the Infrastructure Domain and the Field Domain. … Each of the M2M gateway devices 14 and M2M terminal devices 18 (i.e. reads on wireless node) are configured to transmit and receive signals (i.e. reads on wireless communication), using communications circuitry, via the communication network 12 or direct radio link. … For example, the M2M terminal devices 18 may collect data and send the data (i.e. read on transmit information), via the communication network 12 or direct radio link, to an M2M application 20 or other M2M devices 18 (i.e. reads on to an IoT device). The M2M terminal devices 18 may also receive data (i.e. reads on receive) from the M2M application 20 or an M2M terminal device 18 (i.e. reads on from the IoT device); Han, [0043] discloses FIG. 25A is a diagram of an example machine-to machine M2M, Internet of Things IoT, or Web of Things WoT communication system in which one or more disclosed embodiments may be implemented; Han, [0341] discloses In general, the processor 32 may execute computer-executable instructions stored in the memory e.g., memory 44 and/or memory 46 of the node in order to perform the various required functions of the node. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is inherent for a complex device such as the terminal devices to include a processor and memory storing instructions in order to be able to perform the disclosed functionalities).
Han discloses in one embodiment, an internet of things IoT system wherein a first terminal transmits and receives information from another device but fails to explicitly recite in the same embodiment that the information transmitted includes timing information for a response from an IoT device and therefore fails to disclose “transmit timing information to an Internet of Things (IoT) device, the timing information being associated with reception of a response from the IoT device; and receive the response from the IoT device based on the timing information.”
In a different embodiment, Han discloses:
transmit timing information to an Internet of Things (IoT) device, the timing information being associated with reception of a response from the IoT device; (Han, Fig. 7 & [0060] discloses In step 1 of FIG. 7 Client 504 sends (i.e. reads on transmit) a Request message to Server 502 (i.e. reads on IoT device), which may contain a new DelayIndicator For Request DIFQ (i.e. reads on timing information) or a flag indicating that it is delay tolerant; Han, [0065] discloses For a relative time value, for example, DIFQ=″30 seconds″ (i.e. reads on the timing information being associated with) can indicate that CoAP Client 504 can tolerate 30 seconds delay to receive the Response (i.e. reads on reception of a response) back from CoAP Server 502 (i.e. reads on from the IoT device); Han, Fig. 5 & [0047] discloses FIG. 5 is a diagram that illustrates a scenario including an IoT Node 502 i.e. CoAP Server and a user 504, 506, 508, and 510 i.e. CoAP Client; Han, [0062]-[0064] discloses DIFQ can be an absolute/relative time value or an absolute/relative time range or just a flag indicating whether the Request is delay tolerant and discloses Absolute time can be the Client's time from its local clock, which can be in the form of GMT, i.e., Sun, 6 Nov. 2014 08:50:36 GMT as suggested in HTTP/1.1. Alternatively, it can be simplified to only include the time/date/month/year or time/date/month based on the application need and discloses Relative time for DIFQ can be the time difference from the Client's current sending time to the time when a Response from the Server 502 is expected to arrive).
and receive the response from the IoT device based on the timing information (Han, [0058] discloses With such delay tolerance information from various Clients e.g. CoAP Client 504, Server e.g. CoAP Server 502 can prioritize different Clients and have more intelligence to serve them. For example, Server 504 (i.e. reads on from the IoT device) can first serve Clients 508 and 510 with shorter delay tolerance while sending tardy Response (i.e. reads on receive the response) to other Clients with longer delay tolerance (i.e. reads on based on the timing information); Han, Fig. 7 & [0076] discloses In step 3 of FIG. 7, Server 502 sends a Response message to CoAP Client, which may contain a new parameter DelayIndicator For Response DIFP; Han, [0057] discloses In a Delay Aware CoAP Messaging Model, delay tolerance can be indicated in a CoAP Request, CoAP ACK, and CoAP Response messages to facilitate efficient interactions between CoAP Client 504 and CoAP Server 502. CoAP Client 504 and CoAP Server 502 can adapt their behaviors according to the indicated delay tolerance, for instance, to stay in sleeping mode to save energy).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Han to incorporate the teachings of the different embodiments for the purpose of conforming to the intent of the invention to modify the various different embodiments with technical equivalents that operate in a similar manner to accomplish a similar purpose (Han, [0359]-[0360]) to make the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of an embodiment of performing communication in an IoT system between different devices as taught by Han) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of a similar embodiment of performing communication in an IoT system between different devices with additional and/or alternative features and functionalities of the other embodiments as taught by Han) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of an embodiment of performing communication in an IoT system between different devices (i.e. as taught by Han) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 2, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, (see claim 1).
wherein the timing information includes an indication of a start time (Han, [0064]-[0065] discloses Relative time for DIFQ can be the time difference from the Client's current sending time to the time when a Response from the Server 502 is expected to arrive and discloses For a relative time value, for example, DIFQ=″30 seconds″ can indicate that CoAP Client 504 can tolerate 30 seconds delay to receive the Response back from CoAP Server 502; Han, Fig. 10A & [0135] discloses For example, there are three Requests c1, c2, c3 arriving within the first slot with delay tolerance of 6 seconds, 3 seconds and 5 seconds respectively. The corresponding timing is implied in FIG. 10A, where one slot means one second in this example. Assume the Server sends a Response per second and has already made the schedule for each Request in the sequence of, for instance, c2 in 3.sup.rd second, c3 in 4.sup.th second and c1 in 6.sup.th second after sending an ACK to each of them. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or an indication of an end time”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 3, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 2, (see claim 2).
wherein the indication of the start time(Han, Fig. 10A & [0135] discloses For example, there are three Requests c1, c2, c3 arriving within the first slot with delay tolerance of 6 seconds, 3 seconds and 5 seconds respectively. The corresponding timing is implied in FIG. 10A, where one slot means one second in this example. Assume the Server sends a Response per second and has already made the schedule for each Request in the sequence of, for instance, c2 in 3.sup.rd second, c3 in 4.sup.th second and c1 in 6.sup.th second after sending an ACK to each of them; Han, [0064]-[0065] discloses Relative time for DIFQ can be the time difference from the Client's current sending time to the time when a Response from the Server 502 is expected to arrive and discloses For a relative time value, for example, DIFQ=″30 seconds″ can indicate that CoAP Client 504 can tolerate 30 seconds delay to receive the Response back from CoAP Server 502. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or the indication of the end time” and “or symbols”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 7, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, (see claim 1).
wherein the timing information includes at least one of (Han, [0252] discloses In step 9 of FIG. 14A the CoAP Server 502 may go to sleep for some time before the scheduled sending time is up; Han, [0052] discloses Explicit delay requirement provides the opportunity for endpoints to make better and flexible schedule regarding the sleeping/awake mode switch, also for the CoAP Server to make better data delivery plan for different CoAP Clients and possible data aggregation for the same CoAP Client, etc.; Han, [0164] discloses In step 5 of FIG. 12A, the CoAP Server may schedule itself or related sensors to go to sleep according to the smaller DelayIndicator contained in Step 4 of FIG. 12A. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “periodicity information” and “or an indication of a number of repetitions”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 8, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 7, (see claim 7).
wherein the timing information is associated with more than one responses from the IoT device (Han, [0056] discloses the second way is about leveraging delay information to multicast CoAP Responses to multiple CoAP Clients to improve performance the third way is to exploit delay information to enable CoAP Request cancellation; Han, Fig. 12D & [0204]-[0206] discloses In step 9 of FIG. 12D, the CoAP Server 502 sends a single Response to CoAP Client 504 for the two Requests. The Response has two data chunks sequentially and may contain the DelayIndicator applied to both Requests and discloses This is an aggregated Response for the two Requests in Step 1 and Step 4 of FIG. 12D. The aggregated Response includes the two Token IDs and two payloads corresponding to each Request and discloses Since the time difference from ACK being sent to the current time is still the same for the two Requests, no matter absolute or relative time is adopted, only one DelayIndicator is needed; Han, [0314] discloses In order to support multiple Responses in a single message, we have to reformat the message by embedding the additional Responses as an aggregated response).
Regarding claim 9, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, (see claim 1).
wherein the timing information is based on at least one of a transmission delay associated with a transmission between the wireless node and the IoT device (Han, [0064]-[0065] discloses Relative time for DIFQ can be the time difference from the Client's current sending time to the time when a Response from the Server 502 is expected to arrive and discloses For a relative time value, for example, DIFQ=″30 seconds″ can indicate that CoAP Client 504 can tolerate 30 seconds delay to receive the Response back from CoAP Server 502. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or a processing time associated with the IoT device”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 12, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, (see claim 1).
wherein the wireless node includes a user equipment (UE) (Han, [0357] discloses User equipment UE can be any device used by an end-user to communicate. It can be a hand-held telephone, a laptop computer equipped with a mobile broadband adapter, or any other device. For example, the UE can be implemented as the M2M terminal device 18 of FIGS. 25 A-B or the device 30 of FIG. 25 C; Han, Fig. 5 & [0047] discloses FIG. 5 is a diagram that illustrates a scenario including an IoT Node 502 i.e. CoAP Server and a user 504, 506, 508, and 510 i.e. CoAP Client; Han, Fig. 7 & [0060] discloses In step 1 of FIG. 7 Client 504 sends a Request message to Server 502, which may contain a new DelayIndicator For Request DIFQ or a flag indicating that it is delay tolerant. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or an IoT reader”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 13, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, (see claim 1).
wherein the timing information is (Han, [0072] discloses The new Request includes the same Token ID but different Message ID and DIFQ. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “transmitted alone or”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 14, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, further comprising (see claim 1).
a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor (Han, Fig. 25C & [0342] discloses As shown in FIG. 25C, the processor 32 is coupled to its communication circuitry e.g., transceiver 34 and transmit/receive element 36; Han, Fig. 7 & [0060] discloses In step 1 of FIG. 7 Client 504 sends a Request message to Server 502, which may contain a new DelayIndicator For Request DIFQ or a flag indicating that it is delay tolerant; Han, Fig. 7 & [0076] discloses In step 3 of FIG. 7, Server 502 sends a Response message to CoAP Client, which may contain a new parameter DelayIndicator For Response DIFP).
Regarding claim 16 and claim 30, Han discloses:
An apparatus for wireless communication at an Internet of Things (IoT) device, comprising: a memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to: and A method of wireless communication at an Internet of Things (IoT) device, comprising: receive(Han, Fig. 25A & [0329] discloses As shown in FIG. 25A, the M2M/IoT/WoT communication system 10 (i.e. reads on Internet of Things IoT) may include the Infrastructure Domain and the Field Domain. … Each of the M2M gateway devices 14 and M2M terminal devices 18 (i.e. reads on wireless node) are configured to transmit and receive signals (i.e. reads on wireless communication), using communications circuitry, via the communication network 12 or direct radio link. … For example, the M2M terminal devices 18 (i.e. reads on wireless node) may collect data and send the data (i.e. read on receive information from), via the communication network 12 or direct radio link, to an M2M application 20 or other M2M devices 18 (i.e. reads on IoT device). The M2M terminal devices 18 (i.e. reads on the wireless node) may also receive data (i.e. reads on transmit to) from the M2M application 20 or an M2M terminal device 18; Han, [0043] discloses FIG. 25A is a diagram of an example machine-to machine M2M, Internet of Things IoT, or Web of Things WoT communication system in which one or more disclosed embodiments may be implemented; Han, [0341] discloses In general, the processor 32 may execute computer-executable instructions stored in the memory e.g., memory 44 and/or memory 46 of the node in order to perform the various required functions of the node. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it is inherent for a complex device such as the terminal devices to include a processor and memory storing instructions in order to be able to perform the disclosed functionalities).
Han discloses in one embodiment, an internet of things IoT system wherein a first terminal transmits and receives information from another device but fails to explicitly recite in the same embodiment that the information transmitted includes timing information for a response from an IoT device and therefore fails to disclose “receive timing information from a wireless node, the timing information being associated with transmission of a response from the IoT device; and transmit the response to the wireless node based on the timing information.”
In a different embodiment, Han discloses:
receive timing information from a wireless node, the timing information being associated with transmission of a response from the IoT device; (Han, Fig. 7 & [0060] discloses In step 1 of FIG. 7 Client 504 (i.e. reads on wireless node) sends (i.e. reads on receive from) a Request message to Server 502, which may contain a new DelayIndicator For Request DIFQ (i.e. reads on timing information) or a flag indicating that it is delay tolerant; Han, [0065] discloses For a relative time value, for example, DIFQ=″30 seconds″ (i.e. reads on the timing information being associated with) can indicate that CoAP Client 504 can tolerate 30 seconds delay to receive the Response (i.e. reads on transmission of a response) back from CoAP Server 502 (i.e. reads on from the IoT device); Han, Fig. 5 & [0047] discloses FIG. 5 is a diagram that illustrates a scenario including an IoT Node 502 i.e. CoAP Server and a user 504, 506, 508, and 510 i.e. CoAP Client; Han, [0062]-[0064] discloses DIFQ can be an absolute/relative time value or an absolute/relative time range or just a flag indicating whether the Request is delay tolerant and discloses Absolute time can be the Client's time from its local clock, which can be in the form of GMT, i.e., Sun, 6 Nov. 2014 08:50:36 GMT as suggested in HTTP/1.1. Alternatively, it can be simplified to only include the time/date/month/year or time/date/month based on the application need and discloses Relative time for DIFQ can be the time difference from the Client's current sending time to the time when a Response from the Server 502 is expected to arrive).
and transmit the response to the wireless node based on the timing information (Han, [0058] discloses With such delay tolerance information from various Clients e.g. CoAP Client 504, Server e.g. CoAP Server 502 can prioritize different Clients and have more intelligence to serve them. For example, Server 504 can first serve Clients 508 and 510 with shorter delay tolerance while sending tardy Response (i.e. reads on transmit the response) to other Clients (i.e. reads on the wireless node) with longer delay tolerance (i.e. reads on based on the timing information); Han, Fig. 7 & [0076] discloses In step 3 of FIG. 7, Server 502 sends a Response message to CoAP Client, which may contain a new parameter DelayIndicator For Response DIFP; Han, [0057] discloses In a Delay Aware CoAP Messaging Model, delay tolerance can be indicated in a CoAP Request, CoAP ACK, and CoAP Response messages to facilitate efficient interactions between CoAP Cliet 504 and CoAP Server 502. CoAP Client 504 and CoAP Server 502 can adapt their behaviors according to the indicated delay tolerance, for instance, to stay in sleeping mode to save energy).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Han to incorporate the teachings of the different embodiments for the purpose of conforming to the intent of the invention to modify the various different embodiments with technical equivalents that operate in a similar manner to accomplish a similar purpose (Han, [0359]-[0360]) to make the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with various different alternatives in design and functionality, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios and preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of an embodiment of performing communication in an IoT system between different devices as taught by Han) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of a similar embodiment of performing communication in an IoT system between different devices with additional and/or alternative features and functionalities of the other embodiments as taught by Han) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of an embodiment of performing communication in an IoT system between different devices (i.e. as taught by Han) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 17, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 16, (see claim 16).
wherein the timing information includes an indication of a start time (Han, [0064]-[0065] discloses Relative time for DIFQ can be the time difference from the Client's current sending time to the time when a Response from the Server 502 is expected to arrive and discloses For a relative time value, for example, DIFQ=″30 seconds″ can indicate that CoAP Client 504 can tolerate 30 seconds delay to receive the Response back from CoAP Server 502; Han, Fig. 10A & [0135] discloses For example, there are three Requests c1, c2, c3 arriving within the first slot with delay tolerance of 6 seconds, 3 seconds and 5 seconds respectively. The corresponding timing is implied in FIG. 10A, where one slot means one second in this example. Assume the Server sends a Response per second and has already made the schedule for each Request in the sequence of, for instance, c2 in 3.sup.rd second, c3 in 4.sup.th second and c1 in 6.sup.th second after sending an ACK to each of them. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or an indication of an end time”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 18, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 17, (see claim 17).
wherein the indication of the start time (Han, Fig. 10A & [0135] discloses For example, there are three Requests c1, c2, c3 arriving within the first slot with delay tolerance of 6 seconds, 3 seconds and 5 seconds respectively. The corresponding timing is implied in FIG. 10A, where one slot means one second in this example. Assume the Server sends a Response per second and has already made the schedule for each Request in the sequence of, for instance, c2 in 3.sup.rd second, c3 in 4.sup.th second and c1 in 6.sup.th second after sending an ACK to each of them; Han, [0064]-[0065] discloses Relative time for DIFQ can be the time difference from the Client's current sending time to the time when a Response from the Server 502 is expected to arrive and discloses For a relative time value, for example, DIFQ=″30 seconds″ can indicate that CoAP Client 504 can tolerate 30 seconds delay to receive the Response back from CoAP Server 502. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or the indication of the end time” and “or symbols”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 22, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 16, (see claim 16).
wherein the timing information includes at least one of (Han, [0252] discloses In step 9 of FIG. 14A the CoAP Server 502 may go to sleep for some time before the scheduled sending time is up; Han, [0052] discloses Explicit delay requirement provides the opportunity for endpoints to make better and flexible schedule regarding the sleeping/awake mode switch, also for the CoAP Server to make better data delivery plan for different CoAP Clients and possible data aggregation for the same CoAP Client, etc.; Han, [0164] discloses In step 5 of FIG. 12A, the CoAP Server may schedule itself or related sensors to go to sleep according to the smaller DelayIndicator contained in Step 4 of FIG. 12A. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “periodicity information” and “or an indication of a number of repetitions”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 23, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 22, (see claim 22).
wherein the timing information is associated with more than one responses from the IoT device (Han, [0056] discloses the second way is about leveraging delay information to multicast CoAP Responses to multiple CoAP Clients to improve performance the third way is to exploit delay information to enable CoAP Request cancellation; Han, Fig. 12D & [0204]-[0206] discloses In step 9 of FIG. 12D, the CoAP Server 502 sends a single Response to CoAP Client 504 for the two Requests. The Response has two data chunks sequentially and may contain the DelayIndicator applied to both Requests and discloses This is an aggregated Response for the two Requests in Step 1 and Step 4 of FIG. 12D. The aggregated Response includes the two Token IDs and two payloads corresponding to each Request and discloses Since the time difference from ACK being sent to the current time is still the same for the two Requests, no matter absolute or relative time is adopted, only one DelayIndicator is needed; Han, [0314] discloses In order to support multiple Responses in a single message, we have to reformat the message by embedding the additional Responses as an aggregated response).
Regarding claim 24, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 16, (see claim 16).
wherein the timing information is based on at least one of a transmission delay associated with a transmission between the wireless node and the IoT device (Han, [0064]-[0065] discloses Relative time for DIFQ can be the time difference from the Client's current sending time to the time when a Response from the Server 502 is expected to arrive and discloses For a relative time value, for example, DIFQ=″30 seconds″ can indicate that CoAP Client 504 can tolerate 30 seconds delay to receive the Response back from CoAP Server 502. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or a processing time associated with the IoT device”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 27, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 16, (see claim 16).
wherein the wireless node includes a user equipment (UE) (Han, [0357] discloses User equipment UE can be any device used by an end-user to communicate. It can be a hand-held telephone, a laptop computer equipped with a mobile broadband adapter, or any other device. For example, the UE can be implemented as the M2M terminal device 18 of FIGS. 25 A-B or the device 30 of FIG. 25 C; Han, Fig. 5 & [0047] discloses FIG. 5 is a diagram that illustrates a scenario including an IoT Node 502 i.e. CoAP Server and a user 504, 506, 508, and 510 i.e. CoAP Client; Han, Fig. 7 & [0060] discloses In step 1 of FIG. 7 Client 504 sends a Request message to Server 502, which may contain a new DelayIndicator For Request DIFQ or a flag indicating that it is delay tolerant. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or an IoT reader”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Regarding claim 28, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 16, the at least one processor being further configured to: (see claim 16).
transmit a second response to the wireless node immediately in response to an interrogation from the wireless node if no timing information associated with the second response is received (Han, [0048] discloses For delayed data retrieval, different from normal retrieval operation, the user does not need to get an immediate Response from the IoT node, rather it can wait for certain time or delay tolerance i.e. 20 seconds for client1. For example, in a building monitoring project, the client just needs to acquire the basic temperature data several times in a day, which is delay tolerant since there is no big difference to get the data now or 60 seconds later. However, for another user, it may require the immediate Response. For instance, when a fire accident occurs in a building, in order to quickly determine the location of the fire, the client needs the temperature and humidity sensory data immediately, which is delay sensitive; Han, [0068] discloses For a flag, only one bit is needed, by which 1 means delay-tolerant and 0 means delay-sensitive, or vice versa. For a delay tolerant Request, it is not mandatory to explicitly give a DIFQ. Rather, if without a DIFQ, it entails CoAP Server deciding the actual delay for returning the Response; Han, [0058] discloses With such delay tolerance information from various Clients e.g. CoAP Client 504, Server e.g. CoAP Server 502 can prioritize different Clients and have more intelligence to serve them. For example, Server 504 can first serve Clients 508 and 510 with shorter delay tolerance while sending tardy Response to other Clients with longer delay tolerance. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the combination of the cited teachings together as a whole that the client may send a request that includes the delay tolerant timing where the response is sent according to the delay tolerant timing or a request that does not include the delay tolerant timing where the response is sent immediately).
Regarding claim 29, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 16, further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor, (see claim 16).
wherein the timing information is (Han, [0072] discloses The new Request includes the same Token ID but different Message ID and DIFQ. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “transmitted alone or”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Claim(s) 4, 11, 19 and 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN et al. (US Patent Publication 2017/0373804 herein after referenced as Han) in view of XU et al. (US Patent Publication 2022/0167328 herein after referenced as Xu).
Regarding claim 4 and claim 19, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 3, (see claim 3) and The apparatus of claim 18 (see claim 18).
wherein the slots (Han, Fig. 10A & [0135] discloses For example, there are three Requests c1, c2, c3 arriving within the first slot with delay tolerance of 6 seconds, 3 seconds and 5 seconds respectively. The corresponding timing is implied in FIG. 10A, where one slot means one second in this example. Assume the Server sends a Response per second and has already made the schedule for each Request in the sequence of, for instance, c2 in 3.sup.rd second, c3 in 4.sup.th second and c1 in 6.sup.th second after sending an ACK to each of them; Han, [0064]-[0065] discloses Relative time for DIFQ can be the time difference from the Client's current sending time to the time when a Response from the Server 502 is expected to arrive and discloses For a relative time value, for example, DIFQ=″30 seconds″ can indicate that CoAP Client 504 can tolerate 30 seconds delay to receive the Response back from CoAP Server 502. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or symbols” and “or passive IoT system symbols”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Han discloses receiving scheduling information for communication with an IoT device but fails to explicitly recite that said IoT device is a passive IoT device and therefore fails to disclose “passive IoT system”.
In a related field of endeavor, Xu discloses:
passive IoT system (Xu, [0156] discloses The type of the terminal device includes one or more of the following types: user equipment, a wearable device, an active IoT device, or a passive IoT device used in an eMBB communication system, a narrowband NB communication system, an IoT communication system, an mMTC system, or a lightweight NR communication system; Xu, [0145]-[0146] discloses For example, assuming that the second information is sent once in time domain, and the time domain resource information of the second information may indicate only the time domain position of the second information, where the time domain position of the second information may be a slot or a subframe, the terminal device may receive the second information in the slot or the subframe. Assuming that the second information is periodically sent for a plurality of times in time domain, and the time domain resource information of the second information may indicate the time domain position of the second information, that the second information is periodically scheduled in time domain, and scheduling duration or a scheduling periodicity of the second information in time domain, where the time domain position of the second information may be the time domain position of the second information that is sent for the first time, the terminal device may infer, based on the time domain position and the scheduling periodicity e.g. scheduling duration of the second information that is sent for the first time, a time domain position of the second information that is subsequently sent, to receive the second information in a corresponding time domain position and discloses The scheduling of the second information in time domain according to the preset rule may be that the second information is scheduled based on a fixed pattern. For example, the pattern may indicate that the second information is transmitted in the 1.sup.st ms, the 3.sup.rd ms, and the 7.sup.th ms, and the terminal device may receive the second information in corresponding time domain positions; Xu, Fig. 7 & [0150] discloses A terminal device receives the first system information, where the first system information includes the indication information; Xu, [0152] discloses The indication information may be an index or an identifier, and is used to indicate transmission information of the second system information; Xu, [0158] & Tables 1-2 discloses After receiving the indication information for example, the index, the user equipment in the lightweight NR communication system may search the Table 1 based on the index and read the quantity of repeated transmissions of the SIB1. For example, if the user equipment in the lightweight NR communication system receives an index 1, the quantity of repeated transmissions of the SIB1 is 3. After receiving the indication information for example, the index, the terminal device in the IoT communication system may search the Table 2 based on the index and read the quantity of repeated transmissions of the SIB1. For example, if the terminal device in the IoT communication system receives an index 1, the quantity of repeated transmissions of the SIB1 is 2 and Tables 1-2 shows the index corresponding to different patterns with different parameter values).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Han to incorporate the teachings of Xu for the purpose of providing the system with a means to implement the invention to both active and passive types of IoT systems (Xu, [0156]) and to utilize alternative forms of scheduling communication by utilizing an index to indicate various transmission patterns (Xu, [0158]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with added functionalities and various different alternatives in design, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios (Han, [0359]-[0360]) and thereby, preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of transmitting scheduling information for communication with an IoT device as taught by Han) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of transmitting scheduling information for communication with an IoT device, wherein the IoT device is a passive IoT device and the scheduling information includes an index of a transmission pattern as taught by Xu) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of transmitting scheduling information for communication with an IoT device (i.e. as taught by both Han & Xu) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 11 and claim 26, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, (see claim 1) and The apparatus of claim 16 (see claim 16).
Han discloses receiving scheduling information for communication with an IoT device but fails to explicitly recite that said scheduling information includes a transmission pattern index and therefore fails to disclose “wherein the timing information includes a transmission pattern index, and the transmission pattern index is associated with a corresponding preconfigured transmission pattern in a plurality of preconfigured transmission patterns.”
In a related field of endeavor, Xu discloses:
wherein the timing information includes a transmission pattern index, and the transmission pattern index is associated with a corresponding preconfigured transmission pattern in a plurality of preconfigured transmission patterns (Xu, [0158] & Tables 1-2 discloses After receiving the indication information for example, the index, the user equipment in the lightweight NR communication system may search the Table 1 based on the index and read the quantity of repeated transmissions of the SIB1. For example, if the user equipment in the lightweight NR communication system receives an index 1, the quantity of repeated transmissions of the SIB1 is 3. After receiving the indication information for example, the index, the terminal device in the IoT communication system may search the Table 2 based on the index and read the quantity of repeated transmissions of the SIB1. For example, if the terminal device in the IoT communication system receives an index 1, the quantity of repeated transmissions of the SIB1 is 2 and Tables 1-2 shows the index corresponding to different patterns with different parameter values; Xu, [0156] discloses The type of the terminal device includes one or more of the following types: user equipment, a wearable device, an active IoT device, or a passive IoT device used in an eMBB communication system, a narrowband NB communication system, an IoT communication system, an mMTC system, or a lightweight NR communication system; Xu, [0146] discloses The scheduling of the second information in time domain according to the preset rule may be that the second information is scheduled based on a fixed pattern. For example, the pattern may indicate that the second information is transmitted in the 1.sup.st ms, the 3.sup.rd ms, and the 7.sup.th ms, and the terminal device may receive the second information in corresponding time domain positions; Xu, Fig. 7 & [0150] discloses A terminal device receives the first system information, where the first system information includes the indication information; Xu, [0152] discloses The indication information may be an index or an identifier, and is used to indicate transmission information of the second system information; Xu, [0145] discloses For example, assuming that the second information is sent once in time domain, and the time domain resource information of the second information may indicate only the time domain position of the second information, where the time domain position of the second information may be a slot or a subframe, the terminal device may receive the second information in the slot or the subframe. Assuming that the second information is periodically sent for a plurality of times in time domain, and the time domain resource information of the second information may indicate the time domain position of the second information, that the second information is periodically scheduled in time domain, and scheduling duration or a scheduling periodicity of the second information in time domain, where the time domain position of the second information may be the time domain position of the second information that is sent for the first time, the terminal device may infer, based on the time domain position and the scheduling periodicity e.g. scheduling duration of the second information that is sent for the first time, a time domain position of the second information that is subsequently sent, to receive the second information in a corresponding time domain position).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Han to incorporate the teachings of Xu for the purpose of providing the system with a means to implement the invention to both active and passive types of IoT systems (Xu, [0156]) and to utilize alternative forms of scheduling communication by utilizing an index to indicate various transmission patterns (Xu, [0158]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with added functionalities and various different alternatives in design, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios (Han, [0359]-[0360]) and thereby, preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of transmitting scheduling information for communication with an IoT device as taught by Han) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of transmitting scheduling information for communication with an IoT device, wherein the IoT device is a passive IoT device and the scheduling information includes an index of a transmission pattern as taught by Xu) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of transmitting scheduling information for communication with an IoT device (i.e. as taught by both Han & Xu) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Claim(s) 5-6 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN et al. (US Patent Publication 2017/0373804 herein after referenced as Han) in view of SHOKRI RAZAGHI et al. (US Patent Publication 2019/0182021 herein after referenced as Shokri).
Regarding claim 5 and claim 20, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, (see claim 1) and The apparatus of claim 16 (see claim 16)
wherein the timing information includes an indication of a slot (Han, Fig. 10A & [0135] discloses For example, there are three Requests c1, c2, c3 arriving within the first slot with delay tolerance of 6 seconds, 3 seconds and 5 seconds respectively. The corresponding timing is implied in FIG. 10A, where one slot means one second in this example. Assume the Server sends a Response per second and has already made the schedule for each Request in the sequence of, for instance, c2 in 3.sup.rd second, c3 in 4.sup.th second and c1 in 6.sup.th second after sending an ACK to each of them; Han, [0064]-[0065] discloses Relative time for DIFQ can be the time difference from the Client's current sending time to the time when a Response from the Server 502 is expected to arrive and discloses For a relative time value, for example, DIFQ=″30 seconds″ can indicate that CoAP Client 504 can tolerate 30 seconds delay to receive the Response back from CoAP Server 502. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in an alternative limitation format requiring and contingent on the selection of only one of various alternative options presented and as such the non-selected alternative options are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “or an indication of a symbol duration”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Han discloses receiving scheduling information for communication with an IoT device but fails to explicitly recite that the scheduling information includes an indication of a slot duration and therefore fails to disclose “an indication of a slot duration”.
In a related field of endeavor, Shokri discloses:
an indication of a slot duration (Shokri, [0071] discloses in NB-IoT UL transmission, both multi-tone and single-tone modulations are specified. While multi-tone is based on 15 kHz subcarrier spacing, similar to previous LTE releases, for single-tone, in addition to 15 kHz subcarrier spacing, operation with 3.75 kHz subcarrier spacing is also defined. In this case, the symbol duration of the 3.75 kHz carrier is four times larger than 15 kHz SC-FDMA in LTE. As a consequence, the NB-IoT slot duration is 2 ms for 3.75 kHz, i.e., four times that of LTE; Shokri, [0107] discloses the network node 115 determines a frame structure configuration for a narrowband internet of things NB-IoT system operating in time division duplex TDD mode. The frame structure comprises a plurality of subframes. The plurality of subframes comprises at least one of each of a downlink subframe, an uplink subframe, and a special subframe. The special subframe comprises a gap period during which no transmission occurs, wherein the plurality of subframes are arranged such that the frame structure configuration is compatible with an uplink configuration of the NB-IoT system. The NB-IoT system may have a subcarrier spacing of 3.75 kHz; Shokri, [0109]-[0110] discloses At step 1308, the network node 115 communicates the determined frame structure configuration to a wireless device such as the wireless device 110 operating in the NB-IoT system. The configuration may be sent to the wireless device 110 via SIB1 and discloses The configuration may be used by the wireless device 110 to perform receive or transmit operations according to the received frame structure configuration; Shokri, [0112] discloses the special subframe may comprise a Downlink Pilot Time Slot DwPTS and an Uplink Pilot Time Slot UpPTS, and the UpPTS may have a duration that is an integer multiple of a 3.75 kHz symbol duration, the 3.75 kHz symbol duration equal to a duration of four 15 kHz Single Carrier Frequency Division Multiple Access SC-FDMA symbols).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Han to incorporate the teachings of Shokri for the purpose of providing the system with a means to utilize alternative forms of scheduling communication that is compatible with an uplink configuration of the NB-IoT system (Shokri, [0107] & [0109]-[0110]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with added functionalities and various different alternatives in design, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios (Han, [0359]-[0360]) and thereby, preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of transmitting scheduling information for communication with an IoT device as taught by Han) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of transmitting scheduling information for communication with an IoT device, wherein the scheduling information includes a frame structure configuration utilized for communication that indicates the slot duration corresponding to a subcarrier spacing as taught by Shokri) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of transmitting scheduling information for communication with an IoT device (i.e. as taught by both Han & Shokri) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Regarding claim 6 and claim 21, Han in view of Shokri discloses:
The apparatus of claim 5, (see claim 5) and The apparatus of claim 20 (see claim 20).
wherein the slot duration corresponds to a subcarrier spacing (SCS), (Shokri, [0071] discloses in NB-IoT UL transmission, both multi-tone and single-tone modulations are specified. While multi-tone is based on 15 kHz subcarrier spacing, similar to previous LTE releases, for single-tone, in addition to 15 kHz subcarrier spacing, operation with 3.75 kHz subcarrier spacing is also defined. In this case, the symbol duration of the 3.75 kHz carrier is four times larger than 15 kHz SC-FDMA in LTE. As a consequence, the NB-IoT slot duration is 2 ms for 3.75 kHz, i.e., four times that of LTE. EXAMINER’S NOTE: The examiner notes that the claims are written in a contingent limitation format directed towards limitations contingent on a selection of a non-selected alternative option recited in the preceding limitations and as such are crossed out (i.e. the limitations reciting “and the symbol duration corresponds to a normal cyclic prefix (CP) or an extended CP”) and are not given patentable weight as being directed towards limitations that are not required to be performed as is indicated in MPEP 2143.03 that recites “Language that suggests or makes a feature or step optional but does not require that feature or step does not limit the scope of a claim under the broadest reasonable claim interpretation. In addition, when a claim requires selection of an element from a list of alternatives, the prior art teaches the element if one of the alternatives is taught by the prior art” and in MPEP 2111.04, Section ll that recites “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition precedent are not met”).
Claim(s) 10 and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAN et al. (US Patent Publication 2017/0373804 herein after referenced as Han) in view of XIE et al. (US Patent Publication 2020/0120627 herein after referenced as Xie).
Regarding claim 10 and claim 25, Han discloses:
The apparatus of claim 1, (see claim 1) and The apparatus of claim 16 (see claim 16).
Han discloses receiving scheduling information for communication with a device but fails to explicitly recite that the scheduling information is based on uplink timing advance and therefore fails to disclose “wherein the timing information is based on an uplink timing advance associated with the wireless node.”
In a related field of endeavor, Xie discloses:
wherein the timing information is based on an uplink timing advance associated with the wireless node (Xie, [0165] discloses The terminal device receives first indication information from the network device, where the first indication information indicates a time deviation or a first parameter related to the time deviation, the time deviation is a timing advance of the first uplink subframe relative to the first downlink subframe or a timing advance of the first downlink subframe relative to the first uplink subframe, the first downlink subframe and the first uplink subframe having a same subframe number, and belong to frames having a same number; Xie, [0086]-[0087] discloses The network device determines a timing advance obtained when the terminal device accesses a cell of the network device and discloses The network device sends, to the terminal device, the indication information carrying a total timing advance. The total timing advance includes a sum of the timing advance and the time deviation, and the value of the time deviation is equal to the difference between the first receiving start time and the first sending start time; Xie, [0167] discloses The terminal device determines the timing of the second uplink subframe based on the timing of the second downlink subframe and the time deviation indicated by the first indication information; Xie, [0139] discloses the terminal device may determine the second sending start time based on the second receiving start time, the time deviation, and the timing advance. After determining the second sending start time, the terminal device may perform uplink transmission, thereby avoiding a transmission failure caused because a correct uplink transmission time cannot be determined).
Therefore, at the time before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Han to incorporate the teachings of Xie for the purpose of providing the system with a means to ensure that transmission failure is avoided that is caused because a correct uplink transmission time cannot be determined (Xie, [0139]) and for the purpose of making the system more dynamic and adaptable by providing the system with added functionalities and various different alternatives in design, thereby allowing the system to handle a number of various different combination of specific design structure and scenarios (Han, [0359]-[0360]) and thereby, preventing the system from being limited to a single specific design structure and scenario and furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize based on the guidelines to rationales supporting a conclusion of obviousness seen on MPEP 2143, that the modification would involve use of a simple substitution of one known element and base device (i.e. performing a process of transmitting scheduling information for communication with a device as taught by Han) with another known element and comparable device utilizing a known technique (i.e. performing a process of transmitting scheduling information for communication with a device, wherein the scheduling information utilizes a timing advance when performing uplink communication as taught by Xie) to improve the similar devices in the same way and to obtain the predictable result of the system performing a process of transmitting scheduling information for communication with a device (i.e. as taught by both Han & Xie) and is dependent upon the specific intended use, design incentives, needs and requirements (i.e. such as due to teachings of a known standard, current technology, conservation of resources, personal preferences, economic considerations, etc.) of the user and the system as has been established in MPEP 2144.04.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL Y MAPA whose telephone number is (571)270-5540. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru Thursday: 10 AM - 8 PM 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, Anthony Addy can be reached at (571) 272 - 7795. 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.
/MICHAEL Y MAPA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights