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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN 201910759857.4, filed on 08/16/2019.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/15/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 5, 6, 8, objected to because of the following informalities:
Examiner understands and appreciates the importance of antecedent basis in the construction of claim language, however the above stated claims find themselves rigidly conforming to the rule in such a way that renders the claim language improper grammatically.
In claims 5, 6, 8, 15, 16, and 18 phrases “all neighborhood devices of the each device”, and “based on that the entire-network neighbor relationship…” are structurally sound, but grammatically incorrect to a degree that is difficult to discern the intent of the language.
Examiner would suggest the removal of the word “the” in the phrase “the each device” as the word appears to be limiting the scope of devices to a single device, which is contradicted by the use of the term “each device”.
Additionally, Examiner would suggest simplifying the conditional language used from “based on that the…” to “if the…” to avoid confusion in the claim language.
Claims 4 and 14 objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 4 and 14 recite “the wireless network comprise all of device in one of the at least one candidate set”
Examiner would suggest amending to “comprises all devices in…” or “comprises all of the devices in…” as alternate writings of the same phrase.
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 2-3, 5-6, 8-9, 12-13, 15-16, and 18-19 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 2, 3, 12, and 13, recite the limitation “the at least one night watch device comprises several devices” which is contradictory in its stance and does not properly define the metes and bounds of the invention being claimed. Applicant claims a device in the singular, with the caveat that there may be more than one instance of the night watch device, and then further narrows the claim by stating the device is actually multiple devices. Examiner looks at Fig. 1 of Applicant’s disclosure as an embodiment of the invention and interprets that the “night watch device” (hereinafter “NWD”) as represented is a singular device, but that multiple devices can be designated as night watch devices (See: 101a, 101b, 101c, and 101d). As such, Examiner finds this claim language to not only contradict itself but contradict the representation of the invention found in the specification and drawings.
Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 16 and 18 all recite the limitation “with a largest quantity”. For the sake of clarity, Examiner notes that each use of the term is not identical but each is used to determine a relationship with either the neighbor devices, access terminals or historical data. Examiner would also note that Claims 6 and 16 recite “a smallest quantity” and Claims 8 and 18 recite “a maximum quantity” as well, which is rejected for the same reasons as the largest quantity. Examiner finds these claims to recite terms of degree or relativity to an unknown standard or point of reference. The limitation is often associated with the limitation of “in a wireless network”, however Examiner does not find this to be sufficiently limiting to adequately draw the metes and bounds of the claim as to be replicable. Once again, Examiner looks to Fig. 1 (hereinafter the “Figure”), it appears that the NWDs (101a, 101b, 101c, and 101d) each have a set range (A, B, C, and D respectively) and are selected because of the number of “nursing devices” (hereinafter “ND”) (102) that they cover in their range. This does not, however, explain the claim of “a largest quantity” of neighbors. First, the claim never mentions the NDs as described in the Figure and specification, only neighbors in a wireless network. Further, the claim limitation is not bound to the range of the NWDs, rather an indefinite boundary of the “largest quantities of neighbor devices in the wireless network”. As such, Examiner interprets that the claimed embodiment, without sufficient express support from the specification and/or drawings would not allow someone having reasonable skill in the art to ascertain the scope of the invention claimed.
Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16 recite “at least one candidate set comprises the candidate set” which Examiner finds to be self-defining to a degree that renders the claim indefinite. In context, this language appears to intend to claim that after the relationship is removed from the total network set, if the network set is empty, send the previously obtained candidate set. Yet, the cited limitation chooses to define the previously defined term “the at least one candidate set” (Defined in Claim 4) again, as itself. This language ultimately creates confusion in the definition of “candidate set” as it is uncertain if the new “at least one candidate set” being output herein is the same as the “at least one candidate set” as defined in Claim 4. If so, there is no need for this renewed definition, and if not, the same term is used within the claim language to denote two different embodiments and renders the claim language difficult to ascertain by someone having reasonable skill in the art.
Claims 3 and 13 recite “historically accessing the wireless network” and “a terminal that is of a device and that historically accesses the wireless network”. Herein, Examiner finds two points of discussion. First, the use of the term “historically” is overly broad and indefinite. Historically has two notable definitions, the first being “in the past” and the other being “in accordance with or respect to history” (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/historically). Here, it is uncertain without further context if the claimed embodiment is a historically relevant use of the wireless network such as some specific notable time that should be observed, or if this is any device that has ever accessed the network in the past. Without clarification on this point, Examiner finds that the claimed limitation does not provide an embodiment that would be easily ascertained by someone having ordinary skill in the art. Further, the use of the term “of a device” is inconsistent with the definitions provided by the Applicant within their own claim language. Applicant has defined several devices including NWDs and NDs, each of which were defined as having their own devices therein. The use of the generic term “device” here may indicate the use of a NWD, neighbor device, ND, or any device that may be found in the network without any bound to its use. As such, due to the use of a generic term that can be confused easily with other defined terms in the application, Examiner finds that the claimed limitation does not provide an embodiment that would be easily ascertained by someone having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 5 and 15 recite “a first device with a largest quantity of neighbor devices”, which combines two issues previously discussed in this rejection. For the sake of compact prosecution, Examiner will not restate the basis of rejection, but finds this language to fail to adequately set the metes and bounds of the claimed invention under the same basis as discussed above.
Claims 920 recite the limitation "a night watch function of a night watch device is enabled" and “sending a night watch function enabling notification” for Claims 9/19 and 10/20 respectively. A “night watch function” is never claimed in the preceding claims, the broad degree of what constitutes a “function” in these claims raises the issue of what function is to be enabled should the condition of the claim limitation be performed. As such, Examiner finds that while there is no lack of antecedent basis in these claims, the claiming of the performance of a function without adequate disclosure of the function itself renders the claim indefinite and would be difficult to ascertain or perform by someone having ordinary skill in the art.
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, 4, 7, 9-10, 11, 14, 17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (KR 20090066120 A), hereinafter Kim 1 in view of Kim; Sangwong (US 2019/0289483 A1), hereinafter Kim 2.
Re. Claims 1 and 11, Kim 1 teaches a device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and a processor coupled to the memory and configured to execute the instructions to cause the device to perform a method (Fig. 1), wherein the method comprises: determining at least one night watch device in the wireless network based on the first neighbor information (Pg. 3, Paragraph 6 - the apparatus for transmitting a sensor node according to the present invention is a wake-up state in which all neighbor nodes that are in a power saving state to receive a sensor node message are received within a transmission range of the sensor node through a control channel), wherein a union set of all night watch devices in the wireless network and neighbor devices of all the night watch devices comprises all the devices in the wireless network (Pg. 2, Paragraph 4 - Wireless Sensor Network (WSN) is a network of distributed sensors spread all over the place. It detects and collects information from specific areas for various applications such as remote monitoring systems, telemedicine and unmanned exploration. A wireless network designed to deliver information to a user through a wireless communication technique).
Yet Kim 1 does not expressly teach obtaining first neighbor information, wherein the first neighbor information indicates neighbor relationships of all devices in a wireless network, and wherein a neighbor device of any device and the any device have one or more same service set identifiers
obtaining first neighbor information.
However, Kim 2 explicitly teaches wherein the first neighbor information indicates neighbor relationships of all devices in a wireless network, and wherein a neighbor device of any device and the any device have one or more same service set identifiers (¶0082 - The ESS 840 may be used as a term indicating one network configured by connecting one or more APs 825 or 830 through the distribution system 810. APs included in one ESS 840 may have the same service set identification (SSID)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Kim 2 to the teaching of Kim 1. The motivation for such would be to improve transmission effectiveness via grouping neighboring devices together as Kim 2 provides that devices sharing the same SSID can be included in the same group (¶0082, Kim 2). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claims 4 and 14, Kim 1 and Kim 2 teach Claims 1 and 11.
Additionally, Kim further teaches wherein the determining the at least one night watch device in the wireless network based on the first neighbor information comprises: determining at least one candidate set based on the first neighbor information and a quantity of neighbor devices of each device in the wireless network, wherein the at least one night watch device in the wireless network comprise all of device in one of the at least one candidate set (Pg. 8, Paragraph 3 - the connection confirmation message is not only received at the receiving node but is also overheard by other nodes except the receiving node among the neighboring nodes within the transmission range of the sensor node 100. In this case, the remaining nodes except the receiving node wake up. Performs a function to switch from the up state to the power saving state).
Re. Claims 7 and 17, Kim 1 and Kim 2 teach Claims 1 and 11.
Additionally, Kim further teaches wherein the determining the at least one night watch device in the wireless network based on the first neighbor information comprises: determining at least one candidate set based on the first neighbor information and a quantity of access terminals of each device in the wireless network, wherein the at least one night watch device in the wireless network comprise all of device in one of the at least one candidate set (Pg. 8, Paragraph 8 - The node 2 transmits a wakeup signal to the node 1 and the node 3 in the transmission range of the node 2 through the control channel (501). The node 1 and the node 3 receiving the wake-up signal are switched from the sleep state to the wake-up state, thereby receiving the message of the node 2 through the main RF receiver. Node 2 generates an available channel list by using the usage state information of the data channels stored as shown in the table).
Re. Claims 9 and 19, Kim 1 and Kim 2 teach Claims 1 and 11.
Additionally, Kim further teaches, wherein a night watch function of a night watch device is enabled according to a time period (Pg. 9, Paragraph 5 - all nodes participating in the communication, delete the usage state information of the channel which is no longer used in its table when the duration value elapses) or a terminal connection status.
Re. Claims 10 and 20, Kim 1 and Kim 2 teach Claims 1 and 11.
Additionally, Kim further teaches, wherein the method further comprises: receiving a pre-sleep notification of a first nursing device, wherein the pre-sleep notification indicates that the first nursing device is about to enter a deep sleep state in a target time period; and determining, from the at least one night watch device, a night watch device that manages the first nursing device, and sending a night watch function enabling notification to the night watch device of the first nursing device (Pg. 9, Paragraph 4 - Node 1 can also modify the usage status information for the selected channel by extracting information about the selected channel from the connection confirmation message by overhearing the acknowledgment message or the connection confirmation message. When the node 1 overhears the connection confirmation message, the node 1 transitions from the wakeup state to the power saving state again. Nodes 1 to 3, that is, all nodes participating in the communication, delete the usage state information of the channel which is no longer used in its table when the duration value elapses).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lv et al. (2020/0344688) - ¶0019, 0032-0048
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NOAH JAMES SUGDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00 ET, Fri 9:00-1:00 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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/N.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/HASHIM S BHATTI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
