Detailed Action
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
The Office Action is in response to claims filed on 11/7/2024 where claims 1-24 are pending and ready for examination.
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.
Claims 5-7, 12, 17-19, and 22-24 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-24 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-24 of U.S. Patent No. 12,199,826. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims from the Instant Application are a broadened version of the claims from US Patent No. 12,199,826. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings from US Patent No. 12,199,826 to contemplate and/or solve the features in the Instant Application.
The Examiner has performed a side-by-side analysis of all the claims (independent and dependent). An example of the side-by-side analysis is illustrated below (Independent claim 1). Accordingly all claims are rejected under Double Patenting.
Application No. 18,940/373
US Patent No. 12,199,826
PNG
media_image1.png
238
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
248
287
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
496
273
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 1-24 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.
Regarding independent claims 1, 15, and 20, claims 1, 15, and 20 recited “the auxiliary party device” which lacks antecedent basis. The examiner respectfully requests the applicant to clarify the role of “the auxiliary party device”.
The dependent claims are also rejected as they do not cure the deficiencies detailed above. Claims 1-24 are rejected accordingly.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 13, 15-16, and 20 -21 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Zimny in view of Erdmann (US 20110063999) and in view of Jeuk (US 20190296973)
Regarding claim 1, Zimny discloses a control device configured to communicate on a network comprising at least one leader device, a group of router devices, and end devices, the control device being configured to communicate as an end device, the control device comprising:
a memory (Zimny;
see e.g. [0200] “... memory 1414 ...”);
a wireless communication circuit configured to transmit and receive messages (Zimny
see e.g. [0080] “... corresponding transmitters, receivers, and/or transceivers having one or more antennas to receive and/or transmit wireless communications ...”); and
a control circuit configured to:
transmit, via the wireless communication circuit, messages for transmission on the network to the primary parent device (Zimny; Zimny teaches a networking topology comprising parent devices which may disseminate data and/or messages;
see e.g. Fig. 12
see e.g. [0185] “ ... In some examples, the parent nodes correspond to the routers 1104a-1104d, such that the bridge computing device 702 may be considered a grandparent node. In some examples, the bridge computing device 702 may also be a parent node. In some examples, the bridge computing device 702 may be a parent node relative to one device node while being a grandparent node relative to another device node. In some examples, the device nodes 1108a-1108f may be parent nodes or grandparent nodes to other device nodes”);
receive, via the wireless communication circuit, messages from the one or more auxiliary parent devices and the primary parent device that have identifiers stored in the memory (Zimny; Zimny teaches a network of interconnected devices for exchanging data and/or messages; It would have been obvious to have identifiers stored in memory as Zimny teaches the stored unique identifiers. These identifiers may be readily exchanged in a wireless environment (e.g. beacons, etc.)
see e.g. Fig. 12, [0185]
see e.g. [0091] “ ... a unique identifier for the access device (e.g., a MAC address) ...”)
store a respective received signal strength indicator (RSSI) associated with each of the primary parent device and the one or more auxiliary parent devices (Zimny; As Zimny teaches comparative analysis of signal strength data associated with the primary device and the one or more auxiliary patent devices, the data is necessarily stored for the analysis;
see e.g. Fig. 12, Steps 1202, 1204)
identify a first auxiliary parent device of the one or more auxiliary parent devices as having a stronger respective RSSI than the respective RSSI of the primary parent device (Zimny; Zimny teaches a comparative scheme comprising measuring of signal strength amongst all parent nodes and identifies the parent node having the highest signal strength; where the parent node set includes the current/primary parent and other candidate/auxiliary parent nodes, the highest signal strength candidate is the auxiliary parent having stronger signal strength than the primary parent; Hence one of ordinary skill in the art is readily able to optimize the comparative scheme relative to existing parent devices and/or subsets of auxiliary parent devices with predictable results
[0186] After measuring the SS of the parent nodes, the new device node 1110 identifies the parent node with the highest SS (1204). For example, the new device node 1110 may identify router 1104a as having the highest SS. ); and
Zimny does not expressly disclose:
store, in the memory, an identifier of a primary parent device as the primary parent device of the group of router devices through which messages are to be transmitted on the network;
store, in the memory, identifiers of one or more auxiliary parent devices as router devices of the group of router devices from which messages capable of being received;
transmit, via the wireless communication circuit, an attachment message to the first auxiliary parent device, wherein the attachment message is configured to update the primary parent device to the first auxiliary party device.
However in analogous art Erdmann discloses:
Identifiers (Erdmann; Erdmann teaches the utilization of device identifiers to facilitate the provisioning of ad-hoc networks;
[0036] This requires devices to know the other devices with which it will communicate on the application layer. This can be easily achieved, for instance, if the application-level connection data comprises a collection, for example a simple list, of device identifiers of other devices to which the devices should be connected on an application level. This identifier collection or list (referred to in the following as "binding table") may be stored in an appropriate memory of the network interface.
[0037] In this way, for example, a controller could select as parent one of the devices it is bound to by comparing the device identifiers in the beacon signal and stored in the binding table. For this purpose, the unique 64-bit long addresses of the devices in a ZigBee-network are preferably used as device identifiers.
[0040] “... [0040] The bindings and/or functional groups are preferably configured in the usual commissioning phase, ...”)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Erdmann’s device identifier scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implanting a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning dynamic ad-hoc networks.
Zimny in view of Erdmann discloses:
store, in the memory, an identifier of a primary parent device as the primary parent device of the group of router devices through which messages are to be transmitted on the network; (The combined solution per Erdmann provides for storing an identifier of a primary parent device as the primary parent device of the group of router devices through which messages are to be transmitted on the network)
store, in the memory, identifiers of one or more auxiliary parent devices as router devices of the group of router devices from which messages capable of being received (The combined solution per Erdmann provides for storing an identifier of a primary parent device as the primary parent device of the group of router devices through which messages are to be transmitted on the network);
Zimny in view of Erdmann does note expressly disclose:
transmit, via the wireless communication circuit, an attachment message to the first auxiliary parent device, wherein the attachment message is configured to update the primary parent device to the first auxiliary party device.
However in analogous art Juek discloses:
Attachment message (Juek; Juek teaches the transmittal of a message to replace/substitute a device within the context device controller association;
See e.g. [0019] “... to send a command to the IoT device 145, instructing the IoT device 145 to delete the first local controller 120A. ...”
See e.g. [0032])
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Juek’s messaging scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning ad-hoc networks.
Zimny in view of Erdmann and in further view of Jeuk disclose:
transmit, via the wireless communication circuit, an attachment message to the first auxiliary parent device, wherein the attachment message is configured to update the primary parent device to the first auxiliary party device (The combined solution per Jeuk’s delete/replace scheme facilitates updating the primary parent device to the first auxiliary parent device. A message that instructs he IoT device to delete the old controller in response to a substitute controller being provides is an attachment-update control message because it changes which controller the IoT device remains associated with for subsequent control/communication)
Regarding claim 2, Zimny in view of Erdmann and in further view of Jeuk disclose the control device of claim 1, wherein the control circuit is further configured to set the first auxiliary parent device as a second primary parent device of the control device based on identifying that the first auxiliary parent device has a stronger respective RSSI than the respective RSSI of the primary parent device (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to designate the higher-ranked parent candidate as the next primary parent because Zimny already compares parent-node signal strengths and ranks/select parent nodes based on those signal strength values, and using the stronger-ranked parent as the updated primary parent is the predictable hierarchy-management result of that comparison; see e.g. Zimny Fig. 12).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Erdmann’s device identifier scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implanting a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning dynamic ad-hoc networks.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Juek’s messaging scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning ad-hoc networks.
Regarding claim 3, Zimny in view of Erdmann and in further view of Jeuk disclose the control device of claim 1, wherein the control circuit being configured to identify the first auxiliary parent device of the one or more auxiliary parent devices as having a stronger respective RSSI than the respective RSSI of the primary parent device comprises determining that an average received signal strength indicator of the first auxiliary parent device is greater than an average received signal strength indicator of the primary parent device (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize an average received signal strength indicator for the signal strength comparison because averaging multiple RSSI measurement reduces transient fluctuations and provides a more robust and reliable signal-strength metric for selecting or provisioning the preferred parent device)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Erdmann’s device identifier scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implanting a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning dynamic ad-hoc networks.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Juek’s messaging scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning ad-hoc networks.
Regarding claim 4. Zimny in view of Erdmann and in further view of Jeuk disclose the control device of claim 3, wherein the control circuit is further configured to determine that the average received signal strength indicator of the first auxiliary parent device is greater than the average received signal strength indicator of the primary parent device by a margin (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply a margin or threshold comparison because a margin provides a practical boundary decision for determining when one parent candidate is sufficiently stronger than another, thereby avoiding unnecessary switching based on minor signal fluctuations).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Erdmann’s device identifier scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implanting a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning dynamic ad-hoc networks.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Juek’s messaging scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning ad-hoc networks.
Regarding claim 13, Zimny in view of Erdmann and in further view of Jeuk disclose the control device of claim 1, wherein the control circuit is further configured to automatically set the first auxiliary parent device as the primary parent device after identifying that the respective RSSI of the first auxiliary parent device is stronger than the respective RSSI of the primary parent device (It would have been obvious to implement said feature because automation promptly maintains the best available communication path without requiring manual intervention once the better parent candidate has been identified).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Erdmann’s device identifier scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implanting a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning dynamic ad-hoc networks.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Juek’s messaging scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning ad-hoc networks.
Regarding claim 15, claim 15 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 1 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 16, claim 16 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 3 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 20, claim 20 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 1 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Regarding claim 21, claim 21 comprises the same and/or similar subject matter as claim 3 and is considered an obvious variation; therefore it is rejected under the same rationale.
Claims 8 – 10 are rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Zimny in view of Erdmann and in further view of Jeuk and in further view of Pang (US 20180077742)
Regarding claim 8, Zimny in view of Erdmann and in further view of Jeuk disclose the control device of claim 1, Zimny does not expressly disclsoe wherein the control circuit is further configured to: transmit a unicast message to the primary parent device; and in response to transmitting the unicast message from to the primary parent device, receiving an acknowledge message from the primary parent device.
Pang discloses:
Unicast message and acknowledgments ( Pang;
[0034] “...a unicast message) ... an acknowledgement ... “)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Pang’s unicast messaging and ACKs. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning network devices.
Zimny in view of Erdmann and in further view of Jeuk and in further view of Pang disclose:
wherein the control circuit is further configured to: transmit a unicast message to the primary parent device; and in response to transmitting the unicast message from to the primary parent device, receiving an acknowledge message from the primary parent device (The combined invention per Pang provides for said feature within Zimny’s technological environment).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Erdmann’s device identifier scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implanting a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning dynamic ad-hoc networks.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Juek’s messaging scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning ad-hoc networks.
Regarding claim 9, Zimny in view of Erdmann and in further view of Jeuk and in further view of Pang disclose the control device of claim 8, wherein the control circuit is further configured to: count a number of times that the control device transmits a unicast message to the primary parent device and does not receive an acknowledgement message from the primary parent device (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to count failed unicast ACK attempts because tracking the number of missed ACKS provides a simple reliable metric for determining whether the primary parent device remains operable or should be replaced).
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Erdmann’s device identifier scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implanting a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning dynamic ad-hoc networks.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Juek’s messaging scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning ad-hoc networks.
Regarding claim 10, Zimny in view of Erdmann and in further view of Jeuk and in further view of Pang disclose the control device of claim 9, wherein, when the number of times exceeds a threshold, the control device is configured to set the first auxiliary parent device as the second primary parent device of the control device based on the RSSI of the primary parent device and the respective RSSI of the first auxiliary parent device (It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to switch to the stronger auxiliary parent when the missed-acknowledgment count exceeds a threshold because the threshold indicates degraded operability of the current parent, and the RSSI comparison identifies the better available parent candidate for maintaining reliable network communication.)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Erdmann’s device identifier scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implanting a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning dynamic ad-hoc networks.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Juek’s messaging scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning ad-hoc networks.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Zimny in view of Erdmann and in further view of Jeuk and in further view of Pang disclose in further view of Angadi (US 20210152390)
Regarding claim 11, Zimny in view of Erdmann and in further view of Jeuk disclose the control device of claim 1, Zimny does not expressly disclose wherein the control circuit is further configured to maintain an auxiliary parent table including a unique identifier and the respective RSSI associated with each of one or more auxiliary parent devices.
Angadi discloses:
Table with identifiers and signal strength (Angadi;
Claim 55. The method of claim 53 wherein the table further comprises a device identifier identifying each of the plurality of first devices and the respective signal strength mode value at each of the plurality of time intervals.)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Angadi’s table scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning devices.
Zimny in view of Erdmann and in further view of Jeuk and in further view of Angadi:
wherein the control circuit is further configured to maintain an auxiliary parent table including a unique identifier and the respective RSSI associated with each of one or more auxiliary parent devices.
(The combined solution per Angadi provides for implementing a table in Zimny’ s technological environment)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Erdmann’s device identifier scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implanting a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning dynamic ad-hoc networks.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Juek’s messaging scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning ad-hoc networks.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 USC 103 as being unpatentable over Zimny in view of Erdmann and in further view of Jeuk and in further view of Patel (US 20180270893)
Regarding claim 14, Zimny in view of Erdmann and in further view of Jeuk The control device of claim 1, Zimny does not expressly disclose wherein the control circuit is further configured to receive multicast messages from the one or more auxiliary parent devices.
Patel discloses:
multicast messages (Patel;
see e.g. [0035] “... Various users and applications may benefit from broadcast or multicast communications in a system that supports multiple, concurrent services and frequent uplink traffic. Efficient techniques for scheduling transmissions of broadcast or multicast data based on the dynamic configuration ... “)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Patel’s utilization of multicast. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning networks.
Zimny in view of Erdmann and in further view of Jeuk and in further view of Patel disclose:
wherein the control circuit is further configured to receive multicast messages from the one or more auxiliary parent devices (The combined solution per Patel provides for multicast communications within Zimny’s technological environment)
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Erdmann’s device identifier scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implanting a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning dynamic ad-hoc networks.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate Juek’s messaging scheme. The motivation being the combined solution provides for implementing a known technique resulting in increased efficiencies of provisioning ad-hoc networks.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to TODD L. BARKER whose telephone number is (571) 270 0257. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 7:30am to 5:00pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner's supervisor Vivek Srivastava can be reached on (571) 272 7304.
/TODD L BARKER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights