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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/12/2026 has been considered and placed on record in the file.
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(s) 1-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Diorio et al. (US 2007/0296603 A1, hereinafter, “Diorio”, provided in the 03/12/2026 IDS) in view of BEN HADJ FREDJ et al. (US 2026/0025242 A1, hereinafter, “Fredj”).
Consider claim 1, Diorio teaches an apparatus for wireless communications (see at least figure 1, 4 and 5 and description thereof), comprising: at least one memory (see at least figure 4); and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (see at least figure 4), the at least one processor configured to: determine to configure one or more RFID tags for frequency hopping based on an amount of channel interference of an RFID reader at a first frequency (see at least figure 5 (540-550) and paras. 89-91, Diorio teaches determining to configure RFID tag for frequency hopping (para. 93) based on channel interference detected); adjust, using a first signal including an indication for frequency hopping, an output frequency of the one or more RFID tags based on the amount of channel interference (see at least figure 5 (560, 590) and paras. 92-93, Diorio teaches adapt using a signal that can choose a hopping channel, an output channel/frequency of at least one RFID tags based on the interference detected (550)); and transmit a message to the one or more RFID tags using the adjusted output frequency (see at para. 93 and figure 5 (590), Diorio teaches transmit to the RFID tag(s) using the second signal with adjusted channel/frequency).
Diorio teaches configure one or more RFID tags for frequency hopping (see above), however, did not explicitly teach IoT tags. Fredj teaches IoT devices may be (or may include) RFID devices/tags (see at least para. 36).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the application to modify the invention of Diorio and teach IoT tags, as taught by Fredj, thereby, efficient frequency hopping mechanism of IoT devices.
Consider claim 9: all the limitations of method claim 9 are included in the apparatus claim 1, therefore, claim 9 is subjected to the same rejection applied to claim 1.
Consider claim 17: all the limitations of non-transitory computer readable medium (paras. 75-77 in Diorio) claim 17 are included in the apparatus claim 1, therefore, claim 9 is subjected to the same rejection applied to claim 1.
Consider claims 2, 10 and 18, Diorio in view of Fredj teaches wherein the determination to configure the one or more IoT tags for frequency hopping is in response to the amount of channel interference exceeding an interference threshold (see at least paras. 91, 93, 98-100 and figure 5 (550, 560, 590) in Diorio, where Diorio teaches after determination of interference is above objectionable interference threshold level, configuring the tags for the next hopping).
Consider claims 3, 11 and 19, Diorio in view of Fredj teaches the at least one processor is configured to: receive a response from the one or more IoT tags in reply to the message, the
response using the adjusted output frequency (see at least paras. 54, 97 and figure 5 in Diorio, where Diorio teaches tag(s) response using the frequency of the reader (thus adjusted output channel/frequency)).
Consider claims 4, 12 and 20, Diorio in view of Fredj teaches wherein the channel interference is based on at least one received signal strength indicator associated with one or more response from the one or more IoT tags (see at least paras. 98, 118 in Diorio, where Diorio teaches the interference being based on received RF energy associated with the tags).
Consider claims 5 and 13, Diorio in view of Fredj teaches wherein the received signal strength indicator includes an average strength of a plurality of responses from the one or more loT tags over a predetermined period of time (see at least paras. 94-95, 98 and 119 in Diorio, where Diorio teaches received RF energy from one or more tags within time frame; see paras. 36-37 and 40 in Fredj, where Fredj teaches average signal anergy in a group frequency hopping with plurality of IoT devices).
Consider claims 6 and 14, Diorio in view of Fredj teaches wherein the channel interference is based on a level of frequency band occupancy of the IoT reader (see paras. 90-91 and 119, Diorio teaches the interference is based on level of bandwidth of the channel (para. 119)).
Consider claims 7 and 15, Diorio in view of Fredj teaches wherein the adjusted output frequency is a set channel frequency from a plurality of predetermined channel frequencies (see at least paras. 90-93 and figure 5 in Diorio, where Diorio teaches adjusted frequency is a choice of first and second channel).
Consider claims 8 and 16, Diorio in view of Fredj teaches select the adjusted output frequency from the plurality of predetermined channel frequencies based on the amount of channel interference of the IoT reader at one or more predetermined channel frequencies of the plurality of predetermined channel frequencies (see at least paras. 90-93 and figure 5 in Diorio, where Diorio teaches adjusted frequency is a choice of first and second channel which are selected based on the interference amount).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FITWI Y HAILEGIORGIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1881. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
FITWI Y. HAILEGIORGIS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2632
/FITWI Y HAILEGIORGIS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights