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 .
The application of Aio for a “communication control device, communication control method and program” filed on November 26, 2024 has been examined.
This application claims foreign priority based on the application JP2022-091064, filed on June 3, 2022 in Japan. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a) – (d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claims 1 and 17-18 recite a communication control unit configured to receive a role request signal requesting execution of a role related to communication of a backscatter signal by a backscatter signal generation device, and determine an operation on a basis of the role request signal.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims recites determine an operation on a basis of the role request signal fail to integrated in judicial exception into a practical application.
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the communication control unit when considered separately and in combination, they do not add significantly more. The additional elements or combination of elements in the claims other than the abstract idea per se (e.g., determine an operation on a basis of the role request signal) amounts to no more than mere an apparatus and merely use a generic apparatus to perform generic table functions that are well-understood, routine and conventional activities previously known to the industry. Viewed as a whole, these additional claim elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. The claims do not recite an improvement to another technology or technical field, an improvement to the functioning of the computer itself, or provide meaningful limitations beyond generally linking an abstract idea to a particular technological environment (i.e., an access system for a vehicle). Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as being directed to non-statutory subject matter.
The dependent claims 2-16, when separately analyzed, likewise incorporate the deficiencies of a claim upon which they ultimately depend and are also directed to non-patent-eligible subject matter.
Therefore, Claims 1-18 when analyzed as a whole are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claims fail to establish meaningful limitations on the abstract idea and fail to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. Applicant trying to claim a program for causing a computer to function does not fall into any statutory categories of invention. Applicant trying to claim the program such as the program in a wireless transmission media (i.e. the media is a signal) does not fall into any statutory categories of invention. (See Specification page 15 lines 25-30).
There is no practical application of the program for causing a computer to function stored in ROM or the like (i.e. the signal) as required under MPEP 2106 IV B 1(c). The only positive limitation associates with the program comprises instructions stored thereon that when executed by one or more computers cause the one or more computers to execute the instruction. However, as claimed the program stored in memory (i.e. the signal) has no practical application.
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.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gollakota et al. (US# 10,873,363) in view of Shuji (JP2014027468).
Referring to Claim 1, Gollakota et al. disclose a communication control device (106) comprising: a communication control unit configured to receive a role request signal requesting execution of a role related to communication of a backscatter signal by a backscatter signal generation device (108) (i.e. the transmissions from the backscatter device 108 and/or backscatter device 110 may be received by the receiver 106 that the helper device (104) transmits a carrier signal (i.e. the role request signal) to the backscatter device 108. In this manner, the receiver 106 may be any electronic device that is capable of receiving a wireless communication signal (e.g. a wireless communication device) arranged in the protocol transmitted by the backscatter device 108 and/or backscatter device 110, e.g. Wi-Fi and/or ZigBee. Accordingly, backscatter devices may transmit to conventional electronic devices (e.g. wireless communication devices) using wireless communication protocols) (column 6 lines 56 to column 7 line 7; see Figure 1).
However, Gollakota et al. did not explicitly disclose a communication control unit configured to receive a role request signal and determine an operation on a basis of the role request signal.
In the same field of endeavor of a RFID communication system, Shuji teaches that a communication control unit (1) configured to receive a role request signal and determine an operation on a basis of the role request signal (i.e. the wireless communication device 1 starts a group owner negotiation by transmitting a GO negotiation request frame ( Sequence S3). Receiving the GO negotiation request frame, the wireless communication device 4 returns a GO negotiation response frame (sequence S4). Next, the wireless communication device 1 transmits a bridge parameter request frame (sequence S5). This frame is a frame for requesting the bridge parameter 222 to the wireless communication device 4 and notifying the bridge parameter 222 of the wireless communication device 1. The wireless device 4 that has received the bridge parameter request frame includes the bridge parameter 222 in the bridge parameter response frame and returns this (sequence S6). The radio communication device 1 having an access point function of a radio network and a function for connecting with another network: stores the group owner intent value 221 that is an intent value showing a degree of desire to be an access point determined on the basis of a predetermined standard, and a bridge parameter 222 that is information on propriety of building a bridge to the function for connecting with the other network for communication from another radio communication device) (page 5 paragraphs 3 to paragraph 5; see Figure 1) in order to control the other communication device to be the access point function or the function for connecting with another network.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for a method of determining the group owner among a plurality of wireless communication devices having the access point function of the radio network taught by Shuji in the network system with helper device transmit carrier signal and the receiver receive backscatter signal from the backscatter device of Gollakota et al. because determining the group owner among a plurality of wireless communication devices would provide the receive operate as the function of the access control device define by the received signal.
Referring to Claim 2, Gollakota et al. in view of Shuji disclose the communication control device according to claim 1, wherein the role is at least one of a first role of transmitting a first wireless signal necessary for the backscatter signal generation device to generate the backscatter signal or a second role of receiving the backscatter signal transmitted by the backscatter signal generation device (i.e. the wireless communication device 1 starts a group owner negotiation by transmitting a GO negotiation request frame (Sequence S3). Receiving the GO negotiation request frame, the wireless communication device 4 returns a GO negotiation response frame (sequence S4). Next, the wireless communication device 1 transmits a bridge parameter request frame (sequence S5). This frame is a frame for requesting the bridge parameter 222 to the wireless communication device 4 and notifying the bridge parameter 222 of the wireless communication device 1. The wireless device 4 that has received the bridge parameter request frame includes the bridge parameter 222 in the bridge parameter response frame and returns this (sequence S6) (page 5 paragraphs 3 to paragraph 5; see Figure 1).
Referring to Claim 3, Gollakota et al. in view of Shuji disclose the communication control device according to claim 2, Gollakota et al. disclose wherein the backscatter signal generation device (108) generates the backscatter signal by performing at least one of reflection or absorption of the first wireless signal (i.e. the transmissions from the backscatter device 108 and/or backscatter device 110 may be received by the receiver 106 that the helper device (104) transmits a carrier signal to the backscatter device 108. In this manner, the receiver 106 may be any electronic device that is capable of receiving a wireless communication signal (e.g. a wireless communication device) arranged in the protocol transmitted by the backscatter device 108 and/or backscatter device 110, e.g. Wi-Fi and/or ZigBee. Accordingly, backscatter devices may transmit to conventional electronic devices (e.g. wireless communication devices) using wireless communication protocols) (column 6 lines 56 to column 7 line 7; see Figure 1).
Referring to claims 17-18, Gollakota et al. in view of Shuji disclose a communication control method and a program for causing a computer to function as, although different in scope from the claim 1, the claims 17-18 contains similar limitations in that the claim 1 already addressed above therefore claims 17-18 are also rejected for the same obvious reasons given with respect to claim 1.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gollakota et al. (US# 10,873,363) in view of Shuji (JP2014027468) as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Morita et al. (US# 10,634,792).
Referring to Claim 15, Gollakota et al. in view of Shuji disclose the communication control device according to claim 2, however, Gollakota et al. in view of Shuji disclose did not explicitly disclose wherein, in a case of receiving a measurement request signal of reception quality of the backscatter signal, the communication control unit measures the reception quality on a basis of a backscatter signal for measurement and transmits reception quality information indicating the measured reception quality.
In the same field of endeavor of a RFID communication system, Morita et al. teach that wherein, in a case of receiving a measurement request signal of reception quality of the backscatter signal, the communication control unit measures the reception quality on a basis of a backscatter signal for measurement and transmits reception quality information indicating the measured reception quality (i.e. a first response signal includes at least the first reception quality calculated when a first control signal is received by the first wireless communication device and the second reception quality of a second response signal calculated when the second response signal is received by the first wireless communication device, and a third response signal includes at least the third reception quality of a third control signal and the fourth reception quality of a fourth response signal calculated when the fourth response signal is received by the first wireless communication device) (column 1 line 52 to column 2 line 36; column 14 lines 28 to 55; see Figures 1 and 7) in order to estimate the position of the slave devices while avoiding a situation where the slave device is lighting-on in a way different from a mass performance.
At the time of the effective filing date of the current application, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to recognize the need for calculating the received signal strength indicator (RSSI) that is reception quality of the signal received by each of the slave devices in association with an identifier of the slave device and a transmission source of the received signal to detect the position and is therefore hard to apply to detection of a position of a light-emitting device whose light-emitting state is changed in a mass performance taught by Morita et al. in the network system with helper device transmit carrier signal and the receiver receive backscatter signal from the backscatter device of Gollakota et al. in view of Shuji because calculating the RSSI that is reception quality of the signal received by each of the slave devices in association with the identifier of the slave device and a transmission source of the received signal would provide the receiver device accurately determine the position and function of the backscatter device in a network systems for incorporating backscatter devices.
Referring to Claim 16, Gollakota et al. in view of Shuji disclose the communication control device according to claim 2, Morita et al. teach that wherein, in a case of receiving a signal transmission request for measurement of reception quality of the backscatter signal, the communication control unit transmits a second wireless signal necessary to generate a backscatter signal for measurement (i.e. a first response signal includes at least the first reception quality calculated when a first control signal is received by the first wireless communication device and the second reception quality of a second response signal calculated when the second response signal is received by the first wireless communication device, and a third response signal includes at least the third reception quality of a third control signal and the fourth reception quality of a fourth response signal calculated when the fourth response signal is received by the first wireless communication device) (column 1 line 52 to column 2 line 36; column 14 lines 28 to 55; see Figures 1 and 7) in order to estimate the position of the slave devices while avoiding a situation where the slave device is lighting-on in a way different from a mass performance.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Referring to claim 4, the following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: the prior art fail to suggest limitations wherein the role request signal includes first identification information indicating a communication device that plays the first role and second identification information indicating a communication device that plays the second role, and the communication control unit determines an operation on a basis of the first identification information and the second identification information.
Claims 5-14 depend either directly or indirectly upon independent claim 4; therefore, these claims are also allowed by virtue of their dependencies.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the enclosed PTO-892 for details.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAM V NGUYEN whose telephone number is 571-272-3061. Fax number is (571) 273-3061. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00AM-5:00PM Monday to Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Quan-Zhen Wang can be reached on 571-272-3114. The fax phone numbers for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned are 571-273-8300 for regular communications.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/NAM V NGUYEN/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2685
Prosecution Insights