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 .
Status of Claims
Claims 1- 8 are pending in instant application.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Acknowledgment is made of Applicant's claim for priority based on the application filed on 09/30/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/30/2024 was filed before the mailing of a first Office action on the merits. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being 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.
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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Freda et al. [Freda] US 20260040358 A1 in view of Jha Satish et al. [Jha] WO 2016182532 A1.
Regarding claim 1. Freda discloses an electronic device or an ambient Internet of Things (AIoT) reader, comprising: memory for storing instructions; and a processor configured to execute the instructions to cause the electronic device to: (Abstract, Methods and devices are disclosed contention resolution of Ambient Internet of Things (AIoT) devices. ¶ [0039], FIG. 1B is a system diagram illustrating an example WTRU 102. As shown in FIG. 1B, the WTRU 102 may include a processor 118, a transceiver 120, a transmit/receive element 122, a speaker/microphone 124, a keypad 126, a display/touchpad 128, non-removable memory 130, removable memory 132, a power source 134, a global positioning system (GPS) chipset 136, and/or other peripherals 138, among others.)
send a message on a physical random downlink control channel (PRDCH), wherein the message includes any combination of a paging identification (ID), a reader ID, and a paging re-transmission counter for random access paging; ( ¶ [0081] , Radio frequency identification (RFID) has typically been used for applications of asset identification and/or tracking. Referring to FIG. 2 , an example inventory procedure 200 for RFID is shown. In inventory procedure 200, an interrogator sends 202 a Query message to energize all, or a subset of, RFID TAGs, also referred to as an RF TAG or simply TAG. Following a Query message 202, a TAG selects 204 a random number, e.g., from 0-2{circumflex over ( )}Q−1, where Q is a number of query occasions, and loads its memory with the random number. At each transmission 206, 208, 210 of a QueryRep, the TAG decrements its counter/stored random number until it reaches 0, e.g., at point 212 in FIG. 2 . When the TAG counter reaches 0, the TAG initiates a contention resolution procedure 214, which includes the TAG transmitting its device ID in the uplink, and waiting for confirmation of the device ID in the downlink (to address possible collision between multiple devices selecting the same random number). For a device that has passed contention resolution, at step 216, the Interrogator can send one or multiple read/write commands, to which the TAG should respond. ¶ [0084] , In FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 , other example network topologies 500 and 600, collectively referenced as Topology 3, are shown. FIG. 5 network topology 500 and FIG. 6 topology 600 are similar by including respective assisting nodes 508 and 608, to facilitate assistance for transmissions in either downlink or uplink communication for the AIoT device. Claim 21, A method implemented in an internet of things (IoT) device, the method comprising: receiving, from a reader, a paging message; Claim 23, The method of claim 21, wherein the RA procedure comprises:in response to the paging message, transmitting to the reader in a randomly selected resource, a first RA message (MSG1) including a random ID; and
[Examiner Note: Under broadest reason interpretation reference is disclosing TAG associated with counter/random number which works same as counter for random access paging, it is also disclosing that transmitting device ID (reader id) is happening in downlink channel. Claims language mention method comprises paging message (which include paging ID).] )
receive a second message from energy harvesting electronic devices in a contention access region; (Claim 21 , A method implemented in an internet of things (IoT) device, the method comprising: .... receiving, from the reader, indication or confirmation of a second resource for continued transmission of the data; and sending, to the reader using the second resource, a second message including a second portion of the data and one of either the indication that continued transmission of the data may be performed in the next occasion, or not.
[Examiner Note: internet of things (IoT) device receives second message from the reader.])
Freda does not disclose and determine whether to send a duplicate message based on second message detection results.
However, Jha discloses and determine whether to send a duplicate message based on second message detection results. (¶ [0061] For example, a CN/SGSN 606 can send a paging request with a duplicate-check field having a short temporary paging sequence number (TPSN) per UE 602 (i.e. IoT device). The TPSN can be included in the paging message 620 as a duplicate-check field. The paging message 620, having the duplicate-check field with the TPSN, can be sent from the CN/SGSN 606 to the BSS 604. The BSS 604 can then forward the paging message to one of a plurality of cells, such as paging message 630 in cell nl.
[Examiner Note: Duplicate-check field (or equivalent mechanisms) can—and frequently do—detect duplicate messages in wireless communication which works as determining step for sending duplicate message.])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings as taught by Freda with the teachings of Jha, since doing so would have prevents redundant transmissions, reduces congestion, conserves energy, and ensures that only necessary retransmissions occur, thereby improving both efficiency and reliability.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over modified Freda in view of Bae et al. [Bae] US 20210352735 A1.
Regarding claim 2. Modified Freda discloses the electronic device of claim 1,
Modified Freda does not disclose wherein the processor is configured to send the duplicate message when the second message detection results comprise detecting a collision in one or more random access opportunities (ROs).
However, Bae discloses wherein the processor is configured to send the duplicate message when the second message detection results comprise detecting a collision in one or more random access opportunities (ROs). (Fig. 5B illustrates an example embodiment of a 4-step random access (RA) procedure for an NR wireless network with contention resolution message repetition in accordance with the disclosure. [Examiner Note: UE send the multiple duplicate messages (msg 3) only when it did not receive any feedback which confirms collision in random access opportunities.])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings as taught by modified Freda with the teachings of Bae, since doing so would ensures that data is successfully delivered even when multiple devices attempt to transmit data simultaneously over a shared channel.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over modified Freda in view of Wakabayashi et al. [Wakabayashi] US 20170310427 A1.
Regarding claim 3. Modified Freda discloses the electronic device of claim 1,
Modified Freda does not disclose wherein the processor is configured to send the duplicate message when the second message detection results comprise detecting more than one energy harvesting electronic devices reporting the same random ID.
However, Wakabayashi disclose wherein the processor is configured to send the duplicate message when the second message detection results comprise detecting more than one energy harvesting electronic devices reporting the same random ID.(Fig. 9 Illustrates Processor is sending duplicate messages(801, 804) when it receives same id (803, 806 ACK/NACK feedback messages)from multiple devices.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings as taught by modified Freda with the teachings of Wakabayashi, since doing so would resolve network collisions and ensure accurate tracking.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over modified Freda in view of Jeong et al. [Jeong] US 20100182952 A1.
Regarding claim 4. Modified Freda discloses the electronic device of claim 1,
Modified Freda does not disclose wherein the processor is configured to send the duplicate message when the second message detection results comprise determining that more responses from energy harvesting electronic devices are expected.
However, Jeong discloses wherein the processor is configured to send the duplicate message when the second message detection results comprise determining that more responses from energy harvesting electronic devices are expected. (¶ [0025] FIGS. 3 illustrate message flow diagrams for an exchange of RRC messages and ACK/NACK messages between a UE and an eNB in an RRC message transmission method according to an exemplary embodiment of the present invention; ¶ [0034] Referring to FIG. 3, the eNB as the transmitter transmits the RRC message 4 times at TTI. That is, the eNB transmits the RRC message 311 and repeats the transmission of the RRC at TTI 313 to 317. Accordingly, the UE as the receiver can receive the same RRC messages transmitted at steps 313 to 317. ¶ [0043] Here, the RRC message is transmitted repeatedly at TTI (or at an interval of two or more TTIs) as shown in FIG. 3. That is, the RRC entity 402 transfers the duplicates of the RRC message to the lower layer (i.e., RLC entity).[Examiner Note: Processor is configured to send duplicate messages (RRC-MSG) when it is receiving multiple responses from User Equipment.])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings as taught by modified Freda with the teachings of Jeong, since doing so would ensures that duplicate message effectively repeats the query or request, giving the devices additional time to harvest enough ambient energy to process the message and transmit their data.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over modified Freda in view of Wang et al. [Wang] US 20190116612 A1.
Regarding claim 5. Modified Freda discloses the electronic device of claim 4,
Modified Freda does not disclose wherein determining that more responses from energy harvesting electronic devices are expected comprises determining that some energy harvesting electronic devices sent a prior second message in a previous random access region.
However, Wang discloses wherein determining that more responses from energy harvesting electronic devices are expected comprises determining that some energy harvesting electronic devices sent a prior second message in a previous random access region. (Abstract, The WTRU receives a first message for the first random access procedure and a second message for the second random access procedure. [Examiner Note: Based on WTRU is using different random access regions or resources, it’s determined that devices sent message in previous/different random access region.])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings as taught by modified Freda with the teachings of Wang, since doing so would ensures Dynamic Resource Allocation, Improved Energy Efficiency for Devices and Optimized Network Congestion Management.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over modified Freda in view of Bae.
Regarding claim 6.Modified Freda disclose the electronic device of claim 1,
Modified Freda does not disclose wherein the processor is configured not to send a subsequent duplicate message when all random access opportunities (ROs) in a previous contention access region are detected as idle.
However, Bae disclose wherein the processor is configured not to send a subsequent duplicate message when all random access opportunities (ROs) in a previous contention access region are detected as idle. (Fig. 5A illustrates an embodiment of a random access procedure in which a UE may send a contention resolution message with repetitions in accordance with example embodiments of the disclosure. [Examiner Note: UE send the series of duplicate messages but avoid sending further duplicate message as it did not receive any feedback which confirms contention access region are detected as idle.])
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over modified Freda in view of Bae.
Regarding claim 7.Modified Freda disclose the electronic device of claim 1,
Modified Freda does not disclose wherein the processor is configured not to send a subsequent duplicate message when no second messages are received and no collisions are detected.
However, Bae disclose wherein the processor is configured not to send a subsequent duplicate message when no second messages are received and no collisions are detected. (¶ [0099] FIG. 5A illustrates an embodiment of a random access procedure in which a UE may send a contention resolution message with repetitions in accordance with example embodiments of the disclosure. In the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 5A, a UE 502 may send an initial contention resolution message 504-1 to a base station 500. The UE 502 may be allowed to send one or more repetitions of the contention resolution message 504-2 . . . 504-K to the base station 500. Depending on a monitoring technique that may be implemented to enable the UE 502 to determine if the base station 500 has successfully decoded the initial contention resolution message 504-1, the UE 502 may send any number from zero through K of the repetitions of the contention resolution message 504-2 . . . 504-K. ¶ [0016] FIG. 5A illustrates an embodiment of a random access procedure in which a UE may send a contention resolution message with repetitions in accordance with example embodiments of the disclosure. [Examiner Note: The Processor is configured not to send any subsequent duplicate messages as it did not receive any second message and so far, no collision was detected.])
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 103 as being unpatentable over Freda in view of Bae.
Regarding claim 8. Freda discloses a method, comprising: (Abstract, Methods and devices are disclosed contention resolution of Ambient Internet of Things (AIoT) devices.)
sending a message on a physical random downlink control channel (PRDCH), wherein the message includes any combination of a paging identification (ID), a reader ID, and a paging re-transmission counter for random access paging; ( ¶ [0081] , Radio frequency identification (RFID) has typically been used for applications of asset identification and/or tracking. Referring to FIG. 2 , an example inventory procedure 200 for RFID is shown. In inventory procedure 200, an interrogator sends 202 a Query message to energize all, or a subset of, RFID TAGs, also referred to as an RF TAG or simply TAG. Following a Query message 202, a TAG selects 204 a random number, e.g., from 0-2{circumflex over ( )}Q−1, where Q is a number of query occasions, and loads its memory with the random number. At each transmission 206, 208, 210 of a QueryRep, the TAG decrements its counter/stored random number until it reaches 0, e.g., at point 212 in FIG. 2 . When the TAG counter reaches 0, the TAG initiates a contention resolution procedure 214, which includes the TAG transmitting its device ID in the uplink, and waiting for confirmation of the device ID in the downlink (to address possible collision between multiple devices selecting the same random number). For a device that has passed contention resolution, at step 216, the Interrogator can send one or multiple read/write commands, to which the TAG should respond. ¶ [0084] , In FIG. 5 and FIG. 6 , other example network topologies 500 and 600, collectively referenced as Topology 3, are shown. FIG. 5 network topology 500 and FIG. 6 topology 600 are similar by including respective assisting nodes 508 and 608, to facilitate assistance for transmissions in either downlink or uplink communication for the AIoT device. Claim 21, A method implemented in an internet of things (IoT) device, the method comprising: receiving, from a reader, a paging message; Claim 23, The method of claim 21, wherein the RA procedure comprises: in response to the paging message, transmitting to the reader in a randomly selected resource, a first RA message (MSG1) including a random ID; and [Examiner Note: Under broadest reason interpretation reference is disclosing TAG associated with counter/random number which works same as counter for random access paging, it is also disclosing that transmitting device ID (reader id) is happening in downlink channel. Claims language mention method comprises paging message (which include paging ID).] )
receiving a second message from energy harvesting electronic devices in a contention access region; (Claim 21 , A method implemented in an internet of things (IoT) device, the method comprising: .... receiving, from the reader, indication or confirmation of a second resource for continued transmission of the data; and sending, to the reader using the second resource, a second message including a second portion of the data and one of either the indication that continued transmission of the data may be performed in the next occasion, or not. .[Examiner Note: internet of things (IoT) device receives second message from the reader.])
Freda does not disclose and determining whether to send a duplicate message based on second message detection results.
However, Jha discloses and determining whether to send a duplicate message based on second message detection results. (¶ [0061] For example, a CN/SGSN 606 can send a paging request with a duplicate-check field having a short temporary paging sequence number (TPSN) per UE 602 (i.e. IoT device). The TPSN can be included in the paging message 620 as a duplicate-check field. The paging message 620, having the duplicate-check field with the TPSN, can be sent from the CN/SGSN 606 to the BSS 604. The BSS 604 can then forward the paging message to one of a plurality of cells, such as paging message 630 in cell nl.[Examiner Note: Duplicate-check field (or equivalent mechanisms) can—and frequently do—detect duplicate messages in wireless communication which works as determining step for sending duplicate message.])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings as taught by Freda with the teachings of Jha, since doing so would have prevents redundant transmissions, reduces congestion, conserves energy, and ensures that only necessary retransmissions occur, thereby improving both efficiency and reliability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (See PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VAIDEHIBEN NIRMAL PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-0810. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8 a.m. 5 p.m. ET..
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at 5712727884. 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.
/VNP/Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Patel, Vaidehiben
/SITHU KO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights