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 .
This office action is in response to preliminary amendment filed on 04/14/2025.
Applicant amended claims 1-20 in the preliminary amendment. Claims 21-31 are canceled.
Claims 1-20 present for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is hereby acknowledged that the following papers have been received and placed of record in the file:
Information Disclosure Statement(s) as received on 12/23/2024 and 03/27/2025 is/are considered by the Examiner.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 7, 8, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, line 10, “to disconnect from the second IoT device” should read “to disconnect the first IoT device from the second IoT device”;
Claim 8, line 9, “based on the second IoT device determining to establish a connection” should read “based on the second IoT device determining to establish the connection”;
Claim 13, line 10, “to disconnect from the first IoT device” should read “to disconnect the second IoT device from the first IoT device”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-7, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: relationship among a first IoT device, a second IoT device, and an IoT device.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “which” in line 10, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what “which” is referring to.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “which” in line 14, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what “which” is referring to.
Regarding claim 1, claim limitation recites “the first device combination is a device combination comprising the second IoT device” in lines 17-18, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the first device combination” only comprises “the second IoT device”, or comprises “the second IoT device and the first IoT device”, or comprises “the second IoT device, the first IoT device, and the IoT device connected to the first IoT device”, or comprises “the second IoT device and other IoT devices”.
Regarding claim 3, claim limitation recites “the IoT device” in line 4, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the IoT device” is referring to “an IoT device” in claim 1, line 6, or to “an IoT device” in claim 1, line 10, or to a different/distinct IoT device.
Regarding claim 5, claim limitation recites “the second device combination is a device combination comprising the third IoT device” in lines 10-11, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the second device combination” only comprises “the third IoT device”, or the second device combination comprises “the third IoT device and the first IoT device”, or the second device combination comprises “the third IoT device, the first IoT device, and the second IoT device”, or the second device combination comprises the third IoT device and other devices.
Regarding claim 14, claim limitation recites “which” in line 11, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what “which” is referring to.
Regarding claim 15, claim limitation recites “which” in line 9, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what “which” is referring to.
Regarding claim 15, claim limitation recites “which” in line 13, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what “which” is referring to.
Regarding claim 15, claim limitation recites “the first device combination is a device combination comprising the second IoT device” in lines 16-17, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the first device combination” only comprises “the second IoT device”, or comprises “the second IoT device and the first IoT device”, or comprises “the second IoT device, the first IoT device, and the IoT device connected to the first IoT device”, or comprises “the second IoT device and other IoT devices”.
Regarding claim 17, claim limitation recites “the IoT device” in line 4, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear whether “the IoT device” is referring to “an IoT device” in claim 1, line 6, or to “an IoT device” in claim 1, line 10, or to a different/distinct IoT device.
Regarding claim 19, claim limitation recites “which” in line 7, which renders the claim vague and indefinite. It is unclear what “which” is referring to.
The claims are generally narrative and indefinite, failing to conform with current U.S. practice. They appear to be a literal translation into English from a foreign document and are replete with grammatical and idiomatic errors.
All dependent claims are rejected as having the same deficiencies as the claims they depend from.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-13 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takeuchi et al. (US 10,306,451 B2). A data to be transmitted by broadcast or multicast may be data for establishing a connection with another device; first device and second device establish a connection between the first device and the second device such that the first device is a master and the second device is a slave, and performing wireless communication with each other.
Irie et al. (US 2024/0147555 A1). The plurality of terminals may determine the terminal having the highest communication reliability as the master device and determine the other terminal as the slave device; each of the plurality of terminals performs broadcast transmission of the terminal information to all the other terminals; each of the plurality of terminals receives the terminal information from the other terminals connection with which is established.
Ridges et al. (US 2012/0206557 A1). Obtaining information and use it in determining which of the user terminals is to be the master terminal, while the remaining user terminals of the particular network are deemed to be the slave terminals; the slave terminals do not communicate directly with each other, but communicate with each other using the master terminal.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAYLEE J HUANG whose telephone number is (571)272-0080. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Joon H Hwang can be reached at 571-272-4036. 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.
Kaylee Huang
05/23/2026
/KAYLEE J HUANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights