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 .
Response to Amendment
This office action is responsive to amendment filed on 9/8/2026. Applicant previously elected claims 1-9 without traverse in response to the restriction requirement. Claims 10-20 were accordingly withdrawn from consideration. New claim 21 depends from elected claim 1 is considered on the merits in this action. Claims 10-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration. Newly added claims 22-27 depend from withdrawn claim 10 are also withdrawn from further consideration as directed to the nonelected invention.
Applicant’s request for rejoinder of amended claim 10 has been considered. Rejoinder is not appropriate at this time because the claims directed to the elected invention as not in condition for allowance. In particular, amended claim 1 remains rejected as set forth below. See MPEP 821.04.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Agarwal et al. “SwitchR: Reducing System Power Consumption in a Multi-client, Multi Radio Environment (hereinafter “SwitchR”). (ISWC 2008 conference paper and the conference proceedings table content).
As to claim1, SwitchR teaches a method for operating a wireless communications network, the method comprising:
in a first mode of a power-constrained node (see abstract and sections 1 and 2, The MD is a mobile, energy-constrained device. The abstract states SwitchR reduces mobile device energy consumption by 47-72 %; and discusses battery lifetime and energy efficient radio switching) , using a first physical channel associated with a primary wireless communications protocol as an active channel to communicate with a second node (see section 1 introduction and motivation and sections 4 and 4.1, The first interface/channel is 802.11/Wi-Fi, it also states that the MD can turn on its 802.11 interface and access infrastructure Wi-Fi Ap directly; the second node Is the Wi-Fi access Point (WFAP), MDs initially connect to WFAP, fig. 2 shows an MD communicating directly with the Wi-Fi AP).
in a power-saving mode of the power-constrained node (see section 4 & 4.1, switches the MD to lower power Bluetooth to reduce communicating energy and also says an MD may transition from WFAP to BTG, enabling Wi-Fi to be switched off), configuring the first physical channel in a power-saving state ( see sections 4.1 and 5.1, Bluetooth operation allows MD’s Wi-Fi interface to be switched off and gives step 4 “ power off Wi-Fi radio interface on the MD” ) and communicating using a second physical channel associated with a secondary wireless communications protocol as the active channel (see sections 4.1 and 5.1, The secondary interface/channel is Bluetooth. When Bluetooth is active, the MD’s network traffic is routed through the BTG while Wi-Fi is switched off), to communicate with a third node (see sections 4 and 4.1 and fig. 2, the third node is Bluetooth Gateway (BTG). Fig. 2 shows the MD; Bluetooth, BTG, and section 4 describes the BTG as providing network connectivity to Bluetooth devices) wherein the first physical channel has a higher throughput and a higher power consumption than the second physical channel (see section 1, discloses roughly 786 mW Wi-Fi versus 81 mW Bluetooth and Bluetooth uses about 70 mW for active transfers versus almost 800 mW for active Wi-Fi and fig. 1 compares the two radios),
wherein the second node and the third node are different nodes (see sections 3, 4, 4.1 and fig.2, distinguishes SwitchR. From CoolSpots because SwitchR does not require a unified AP and states that the WFAP and BTG as separate access points and further identifies the WiFi AP and Bluetooth Gateway as separate components).
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SwitchR and further in view of Giles U.S. Patent No. 8,499,079 (referred to herein after as Giles).
As to claim 2, the method as recited in claim 1 further comprising: announcing at least one secondary wireless communications protocol supported by the third node for the second physical channel in response to a service discovery request received from the power-constrained node using the primary wireless communications protocol.
SwitchR teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not teach discovering the secondary wireless capability of the third node over the primary wireless protocol. Giles teaches cross-transport service discovery wherein information concerning Bluetooth services/capabilities supported by a device is requested and provided sing alternate wireless transport such as wi-Fi.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention to incorporate the alternate transport service discovery technique of Giles into the Wi-Fi/Bluetooth system of SwitchR so that the mobile device could discover Bluetooth capabilities supported by the secondary communication device using the existing Wi-Fi connection before transitioning communication to Bluetooth. Consequently, reduce service discovery delay and unnecessary Bluetooth discovery procedures and would facilitate establishment of the lower power Bluetooth communication path.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SwitchR and further in view of Qi et al. U.S. Patent No. 11,490,242 (referred to herein after as Qi)
As to claim 5, SwitchR does not but Qi teaches “announcing at least one primary wireless communications protocol supported by the third node in response to a message received from the power-constrained node using the secondary wireless communications protocol.”
Qi teaches a seeker device sending a service discovery request using Bluetooth /BLE packet identifying requested Wi-Fi services/data links. A provider device receives the Bluetooth request, determines whether the requested Wi-Fi services/data link is supported, and responds with Bluetooth packet indicating the supported Wi-Fi service/data link. Furthermore, Qi specifically identifies wi-Fi data links including NAN, Wi-Fi, and Wi-Fi infrastructure.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art, at the time of the invention to incorporate the Bluetooth assisted Wi-Fi capability discovery technique into SwitchR to permit the mobile device to determine, using lower power Bluetooth connection, whether the secondary communication device supports Wi-Fi before establishing or activating the high power Wi-Fi connection, thereby reducing unnecessary Wi-Fi activation and improving power efficiency.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SwitchR and further in view of Radhakrishnan et al U.S. Patent No. 10,244,470 (referred to herein after as Rad).
As to claim 21, SwitchR teaches the limitations of claim 1 but does not teach maintaining the secondary physical channel as an active channel and using the secondary physical channel to receive a trigger that causes the power-constrained node to transition from the power saving mode back to the first mode. Rad teaches a wireless device having wi-Fi Bluetooth radios, wherein the Wi-Fi radio transitions from an active mode to a deep-sleep mode while the Bluetooth radio remains active. Rad further teaches receiving through the Bluetooth channel, an indication that data packets are addressed to the device, and responsive to the indication, transitioning the Wi-Fi radio from the deep mode back to the active mode.
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the Bluetooth assisted power saving technique of Rad into the Wi-Fi/Bluetooth architecture of SwitchR so that the lower power Bluetooth channel remains available while higher power Wi-Fi radio is in a power saving state and can receive an indication causing the Wi-Fi radio to return to its active state. Such a modification would further reduce power consumption by allowing the higher power Wi-Fi radio to remain in a low power state until data requiring Wi-Fi communication is available.
Claim 6, 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SwitchR and further in view Zeng et al. U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2008/0316997 (referred to herein as Zeng).
As to claim 6, SwitchR teaches a method for operating a wireless communications network, the method (see abstract sections 1 and 4) comprising:
in a first mode of a power-constrained node (see at least abstract and section 1. The mobile device (MD) is the power constrained node. The reference is specifically directed to reducing energy consumption of mobile devices selecting between heterogenous radios), using a first physical channel (Wi-Fi channel)associated with a primary wireless communications protocol (802.11/Wi-Fi) as an active channel to communicate with a second node (access point/network node) (see section 4, 4.1 and fig. 2, The MD initially communicates through its 802.11/Wi-Fi interface with a Wi-Fi access point (WFAP) , the MD initially connect to the WFAP, and that the MD can turn on its 802.11 interface and access the infrastructure Wi-Fi AP directly); and
in a power-saving mode of the power-constrained node, configuring the first physical channel in a power-saving state (see sections 4 and 4.1, transitioning traffic away from Wi-Fi to lower Bluetooth, thereby allowing the MD’s Wi-Fi to be switched off),
and communicating using a second physical channel (Bluetooth channel) associated with a secondary wireless communications protocol (Bluetooth) as the active channel to communicate with a third node (Blue tooth capable network node) (see sections 4, 4.1 and fig. 2, while operating through its Bluetooth interface, the MD’s network traffic is routed through a Bluetooth Gateway (BTG)),
wherein the first physical channel has a higher throughput and a higher power consumption than the second physical channel (see sections 1 and 4.1, Introduction describes the different bandwidth and power characteristics of Bluetooth and Wi-Fi. It reports approximately 786 mW from Wi-Fi versus 81 mW for Bluetooth. Furthermore, the sections explain that when an application requires a higher bandwidth connection, the MD turns on its 802.11 interface)
and the method further comprises:
transitioning from the primary wireless communications protocol associated with the first physical channel to the secondary wireless communications protocol associated with the second physical channel (see section 4 for energy savings an MD initially connecting through Wi-Fi and subsequently transitioning it connection to Bluetooth, enabling Wi-Fi to be switched off);
SwitchR teaches the limitations of claim 6 including transitioning a power constrained mobile device from a higher power, higher throughput Wi-Fi interface to a lower power Bluetooth interface and as part of transition, adjusting the mobile device routing table to route outgoing traffic over Bluetooth. See SwitchR, sections 4, 4.1.5 and 5.1. SwitchR, does not explicitly, (i) that the second node and third node are the same node, (ii) that the second node is a multi-protocol node or (iii) that the routing table update uses a secondary protocol node identifier for the power constrained node. Rather, SwitchR teaches separate Wi-Fi and Bluetooth access points. Zeng teaches a multi radio node having multiple modules/interfaces operating according to respective protocols and managed by a common routing manager. Zeng further teaches respective interface specific MAC addresses for the radio interfaces and maintaining interface specific address information in routing information. Therefore, Zeng teaches the use of the same multi-protocol node for different radio communications and the use of an identifier corresponding to the particular radio interface selected for communication. It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary sills in the art at the time of the invention, to modify the SwitchR architecture according to Zeng’s known multi-radio-node architecture such that the Wi-Fi and Bluetooth communications are provided through different radio interfaces of the same multi-protocol node and the routing information identifies the interface selected for Communication. Consequently, providing common routing management for multiple radio interfaces and allowing traffic to be directed through the appropriate protocol /interface when transitioning between primary and secondary wireless protocols.
As to claim 7, SwitchR-Zeng teaches the method as recited in claim 6 wherein the update includes the power-constrained node sending an unsolicited announcement using the secondary protocol node identifier for the power-constrained node (see Zeng figs. 8 and 9 step 910, Zeng teaches the power constrained node sending uncollected announcement using interface specific identifier. Also teaches that each multi-radio meshed node periodically generates and broadcasts HELLO messages over the air, and that each radio interface broadcasts its own Hello message. Each Hello message includes a source node MACC address filed 840 identifying the source node and a source interface MAC address field 850 identifying the particular radio interface transmitting the HELLO message)
and the second node sending a second unsolicited announcement (see at least paragraph 0085 of Zeng, The HELLO message procedure is performed aby a plurality of multi-radio meshed nodes. At fig. 9, step 910, each multi radio meshed node broadcast Hello messages over all of its radio interfaces, such multiple nodes and multiple interfaces transmit the disclosed announcements. Accordingly, Zeng does not limit the announcement operation to a single node or a single transmission)
using a primary protocol node identifier for the power-constrained node (Zeng teaches respective interface specific MAC addresses associated with different radio modules/protocols interfaces and teaches that the respective interface identifiers are included in the HELLO announcement).
As to claim 8, SwitchR-Zeng teaches the method as recited in claim 6 further comprising:
transitioning from the secondary wireless communications protocol (Bluetooth) to the primary wireless communications protocol (Wi-Fi), (SwitchR teaches the reverse transition from the lower power Bluetooth communication back to the higher bandwidth Wi-Fi communication when additional bandwidth is required), the transitioning comprising:
triggering a second update of the routing table to use a primary protocol node identifier for the power-constrained node (see Zeng paragraphs 0046, 0049 and 0051, the routing manager maintains routing table 245 and that the node constantly updates the routing table to maintain current information. The routing table entries contain interface information).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SwitchR in view of Zeng and further in view Ji et al U.S. Patent No. 7,492,787 (referred to herein after as Ji)
SwitchR in view of Zang teaches the method of claim 8 but does not explicitly teach that the second update includes the power constrained node sending an unsolicited announcement using the primary protocol identifier. Ji teaches that upon selecting a different network interface as device updates its local routing table and MAC to IP binding and broadcasts a gratuitous ARP request announcing the new mapping, where tine MC address of the preferred interface is used in the announcement (see Fig. 6, steps 704-714 and the corresponding texts in col. 10, lines 9-34).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skilled in the art, at the of the invention, to incorporate the gratuitous -ARP announcement technique of Ji into those of SwitchR-Zeng multi -radio system such that, after transitioning to the primary wireless interface and updating the routing information, the power constrained node announces the address mapping associated with the selected primary interface. Such modification would inform other network devices of the interface change and allow subsequent traffic to be properly directed to the currently selected interface.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 4 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that that previously withdrawn independent claim 10 should be rejoined because claim 10 has been amended to include the limitations corresponding to amended claim 1. Applicant’s argument has been considered but is not persuasive.
Rejoinder is not appropriate at this stage of prosecution. Under MPEP 821.04, the propriety of the restriction requirement is considered for purposes of rejoinder when all the claims directed to the elected invention are in condition for allowance. Although withdrawn claim 10 has been amended to contain limitations corresponding to claim 1, amended claim 1 remains rejected for the reasons set forth above. Accordingly, the elected invention is not currently in condition for allowance and claim 10 remains withdrawn from further consideration. Newly added claims 22-27 depend from withdrawn claim 1 and also remain withdrawn from further consideration. Rejoinder will be reconsidered, as appropriate, if the claims directed to the elected invention subsequently become allowable and the requirements of MPEP 821.04 are satisfied.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim rejections under 35 U.S.C 103 over Preiszler and Vasseur have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SARGON N NANO whose telephone number is (571)272-4007. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 AM-3:30 PM. M.S.T..
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, Nicholas Taylor can be reached at 571 272 3889. 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.
/SARGON N NANO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2443
