CTFR 19/104,962 CTFR 87412 DETAILED ACTION Status of the Claims This office action is submitted in response to the amendment filed on 3/6/26. Examiner notes that this application claims priority from PCT/CN2022/122488. Examiner further notes Applicant’s priority date of 9/29/22, which stems from the aforementioned PCT. Claims 1-15 were previously cancelled. Claims 16, 19, 24, and 27 have been amended. Therefore, claims 16-30 are currently pending and have been examined. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 16-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Step 1: Claims 16-30 are directed to patent-eligible subject matter categories under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, claims 16-23 each recite an access point (AP) comprising a transceiver and a processor, and thus fall within the "machine" category. Claims 24-30 each recite an electronic shelf label (ESL) comprising a transceiver and a processor, and thus likewise fall within the "machine" category. Accordingly, the claims satisfy Step 1. Step 2A, Prong One: Independent claims 16 and 24, in part, describe an invention comprising: (1) broadcasting a periodic advertisement including scheduling information for an advertisement message; and (2) receiving or transmitting the advertisement message according to that scheduling information during a determined time period or indicated sub-slot. As such, the invention is directed to the abstract idea of coordinating and broadcasting advertisements between devices in response to specific instructions, which, pursuant to MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), is aptly categorized as a method of organizing human activity (i.e., advertising). Therefore, under Step 2A, Prong One, the claims recite a judicial exception. Next, the aforementioned claims recite additional elements including "an access point (AP)" (claim 16), "an electronic shelf label (ESL)" (claim 24), "a transceiver," and "a processor coupled to the transceiver." These limitations are recited at a high level of generality and appear to be nothing more than generic wireless communication devices and components used to apply the abstract idea. Claims that amount to nothing more than an instruction to apply the abstract idea using generic computer or communication hardware do not render an abstract idea eligible. Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int'l , 573 U.S. 208, 223 (2014), 110 USPQ2d 1977, 1983 (2014). Step 2A, Prong Two: Looking at the elements individually and in combination, the claims as a whole do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they fail to: improve the functioning of a computer or a technical field (the claims do not recite any specific technological improvement to the access point, electronic shelf label, transceiver, or processor themselves); apply the judicial exception in the treatment or prophylaxis of a disease; apply the judicial exception with a particular machine; effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; or apply the judicial exception beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Rather, the claims merely use generic wireless communication devices as tools to perform the abstract idea, and/or generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment (i.e., an ESL network). Accordingly, the claims do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, and the analysis proceeds to Step 2B. Step 2B: The claims do not include additional elements sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The additional elements, when considered individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Furthermore, looking at the limitations as an ordered combination adds nothing that is not already present when looking at the elements taken individually. There is no indication that the combination of elements improves the functioning of a computer or any other technology, and their collective functions are merely facilitated by generic wireless communication hardware implementation. Additionally, pursuant to the requirement under Berkheimer v. HP Inc. , 881 F.3d 1360, 125 USPQ2d 1649 (Fed. Cir. 2018), the following citations are provided to demonstrate that the additional elements identified above, including the transmission and reception of data over a wireless network, amount to activities that are well-understood, routine, and conventional. See MPEP § 2106.05(d). Receiving or transmitting data over a network: Symantec Corp. v. Zscaler, Inc. , 838 F.3d 1307, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2016); OIP Techs., Inc. v. Amazon.com, Inc. , 788 F.3d 1359, 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (sending messages over a network); buySAFE, Inc. v. Google, Inc. , 765 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (computer receives and sends information over a network). Thus, taken alone and in combination, the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the above-identified judicial exception, and claims 16-30 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Dependent claims 17-23 (depending from claim 16) and dependent claims 25-30 (depending from claim 24) add further limitations that likewise fail to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. These claims add details such as: Claims 17 and 25 further limit the claims to recite, respectively, that the processor is configured to "broadcast to one or more ESLs the periodic advertisement including an indication of one or more occupied sub-slots" and "receive the advertisement from one or more of the ESLs in an unoccupied sub-slot" (claim 17), and that the processor is configured to "receive from the AP the periodic advertisement including an indication of one or more occupied sub-slots" and "transmit the advertisement to the AP according to the scheduling information in an unoccupied sub-slot" (claim 25). These limitations further specify parameters of the abstract communication scheduling concept — identifying which time slots are occupied and communicating in unoccupied slots — and do not recite any improvement to computer functionality or any other technical advance beyond the abstract idea itself. Claims 18-19 and 26-27 further limit the claims to recite that the processor is configured to "configure the one or more ESLs into ESL groups associated with times at which another radio frequency (RF) transmitter is not expected to transmit" and "broadcast the periodic advertisement to the ESL groups at the times at which the other RF transmitter is not expected to transmit" (claim 18), and further that the processor is configured to "configure the ESL groups according to a static ratio of times at which the other RF transmitter is not expected to transmit and times at which the other RF transmitter is expected to transmit" (claim 19). Claims 26 and 27 recite the corresponding ESL-side limitations. These limitations describe organizing communication entities into groups and scheduling their communications to avoid interference with another RF transmitter — a further elaboration of the abstract method of organizing and managing communication timing that does not constitute a meaningful technical improvement beyond the abstract idea. Claims 20-21 and 28-29 further limit the claims to recite that the processor is configured to "transmit to an ESL associated with an ESL ID an indication of a sub-slot" and "receive from the ESL associated with the ESL ID the advertisement in the indicated sub-slot" (claim 20), and further that the processor is configured to "transmit to the ESL associated with the ESL ID an indication of a position in the sub-slot" and "receive from the ESL associated with the ESL ID the advertisement in the indicated position in the indicated sub-slot" (claim 21). Claims 28 and 29 recite the corresponding ESL-side limitations. These limitations add further detail regarding the addressing of individual devices and the assignment of specific timing positions within the abstract scheduling framework without adding any inventive concept beyond the abstract scheduling idea itself. Claims 22 and 30 further limit the claims to recite that the processor is configured to "transmit to the ESL associated with the ESL ID an advertising interval, a quantity of ADVs to transmit, and an indication of a channel in which to transmit the ADV" and "receive from the ESL associated with the ESL ID the ADV according to the advertising interval, the quantity of ADVs to transmit, and the indication of the channel in which to transmit the ADV" (claim 22), with claim 30 reciting the corresponding ESL-side limitations. These limitations specify well-known wireless protocol parameters — transmission intervals, quantities, and channel designations — that are additional details of the abstract scheduling concept representing nothing beyond the generic operation of wireless communication devices. Claim 23 further limits claim 16 to recite that the processor is further configured to "determine an AP scan window based on the scheduling information" and "receive the advertisement from one or more of the ESLs during the determined AP scan window." This limitation specifies that the AP determines a reception window from the scheduling information it has broadcast — a further elaboration of the abstract idea of coordinating communication timing that does not transform the abstract idea into patent-eligible subject matter. Accordingly, claims 16-30 do not contain an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed abstract idea into a patent-eligible application, and are directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claims 16-17, 20-25, and 28-30 are rejected unde r 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sim et al. (US 8,3 20,340 B2) in view of Graube et al. (US 2022/0051310 A1). Claim 16: Sim d iscloses an access point (AP), comprising: a transceiver; and a processor coupled to the transceiver (col. 7. Sim discloses beaconing devices (BDEVs) in a distributed wireless network, each comprising a processor and transceiver configured to broadcast beacon frames and receive transmissions from other devices); and configured to: broadcast to one or more electronic shelf labels (ESLs) a periodic advertisement including scheduling information for an advertisement message (ADV) from the one or more ESLs (col. 7-8; Fig. 16; Fig. 17; Fig. 21. The BDEV broadcasts a beacon frame periodically during its designated Beacon Medium Access Slot (BMAS) within a superframe, wherein the beacon frame includes scheduling information — specifically a BMAS bitmap — conveying the superframe structure, including which Medium Access Slots (MASs) are designated as BMASs and which are available for data traffic, enabling receiving devices to determine when to transmit); wherein the scheduling information is configured to determine an AP scan window occurring within an indicated sub-slot which is associated with the periodic advertisement (col. 7-8; Fig. 21. The BMAS is composed of a plurality of Beacon Slots (BSs) and a Contention Access Period (CAP). The beacon frame is broadcast during one of the BSs within the BMAS, and the CAP is a sub-slot of the same BMAS that is thereby associated with the periodic beacon frame. All devices, including BDEVs, are required to listen during BMASs for beacons as well as data transmitted during the CAP, wherein the BDEV's reception window — i.e., the AP scan window — occurs within the CAP sub-slot of the BMAS, which is associated with the periodic beacon frame broadcast during that same BMAS); and receive the ADV from one or more of the ESLs during the determined AP scan window within the indicated sub-slot which is associated with the periodic advertisement according to the scheduling information (col. 7-8; Fig. 21. The BDEV receives transmissions from other devices during the CAP — the designated reception period within the BMAS that is defined by and associated with the beacon frame broadcast during that superframe's BMAS — according to the scheduling information conveyed in the beacon frame). Sim does not appear to explicitly disclose that the one or more devices are "electronic shelf labels (ESLs)" or that the beaconing device is specifically "an access point (AP)" for ESL systems. Graube, however, discloses electronic shelf labels (ESLs) and access points for ESL systems (paragraph 0003, disclosing a system of electronic shelf labels (ESLs), a management entity computing device, and user mobile devices used by store pickers; paragraph 0061, disclosing an ESL including a processor, memory, a display, and one or more wireless transceivers; paragraph 0071, disclosing a store management entity server coupled to a plurality of wireless access points (e.g., Wi-Fi, Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) access points) deployed throughout the store/warehouse and configured to establish wireless communication links with a large number of ESLs, which are configured to transmit and receive BLE messages; Fig. 1A showing system 100 with server 150, access points 130, and ESLs 110). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine the scheduling mechanism of Sim with the ESL/AP system of Graube. One would have been motivated to do this in order to provide efficient, collision-free wireless communication in an ESL system with multiple ESLs competing for AP access, thereby improving system throughput, reducing transmission collisions, and reducing power consumption at the ESLs. Sim, col. 7-8; Graube, paragraph 0003, paragraph 0071. Claim 17: The Sim/Graube combination discloses those limitations cited above. Sim further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: broadcast to one or more ESLs the periodic advertisement including an indication of one or more occupied sub-slots (col. 7-8; Fig. 21. The BDEV broadcasts a beacon frame including a BMAS bitmap conveying which MASs are designated as occupied beacon medium access slots); and receive the ADV from one or more of the ESLs in an unoccupied sub-slot (col. 7-8; Fig. 21. The BDEV receives transmissions from other devices during MASs not designated as BMASs, wherein such MASs constitute unoccupied slots available for device transmissions). Claim 20: The Sim/Graube combination discloses those limitations cited above. Sim further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit to an ESL associated with an ESL ID an indication of a sub-slot (col. 7-8; Fig. 17; Fig. 21. The BDEV broadcasts a beacon frame including BMAS bitmap information conveying designated MASs and available data slots to devices associated with specific device identifiers); and receive from the ESL associated with the ESL ID the ADV in the indicated sub-slot (col. 7-8; Fig. 21. The BDEV receives transmissions from specific devices during the designated sub-slots according to the slot designations conveyed in the beacon frame). Claim 21: The Sim/Graube combination discloses those limitations cited above. Sim further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit to the ESL associated with the ESL ID an indication of a position in the sub-slot (col. 7-8; Fig. 21. The beacon frame includes the BMAS structure with timing information indicating specific BS positions — BS(0) and BS(1) — within the BMAS, constituting an indication of a position in the sub-slot associated with the periodic beacon frame); and receive from the ESL associated with the ESL ID the ADV in the indicated position in the indicated sub-slot (col. 7-8; Fig. 21. The BDEV receives transmissions from devices at specific timing positions within the designated sub-slots according to the timing information conveyed in the beacon frame). Claim 22: The Sim/Graube combination discloses those limitations cited above. Sim further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: transmit to the ESL associated with the ESL ID an advertising interval, a quantity of ADVs to transmit, and an indication of a channel in which to transmit the ADV (col. 7-8; Fig. 16; Fig. 17. The beacon frame includes information about the superframe structure with periodicity information indicating beacon intervals, beacon frame transmission parameters, and designated MAS slots for transmissions); and receive from the ESL associated with the ESL ID the ADV according to the advertising interval, the quantity of ADVs to transmit, and the indication of the channel in which to transmit the ADV (col. 7-8. The BDEV receives transmissions from devices according to the periodicity information and slot designations conveyed in the beacon frame). Claim 23: The Sim/Graube combination discloses those limitations cited above. Sim further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: determine an AP scan window based on the scheduling information (col. 7-8; Fig. 21. The BDEV determines its reception timing window — the CAP within its BMAS — based on the superframe structure and slot designation information broadcast in the beacon frame); and receive the ADV from one or more of the ESLs during the determined AP scan window (col. 7-8; Fig. 21. The BDEV receives transmissions from devices during the CAP according to the superframe structure and slot designations, wherein the BDEV listens for transmissions during the time periods designated for device transmissions within the BMAS). Claim 24: Sim discloses an electronic shelf label (ESL), comprising: a transceiver; and a processor coupled to the transceiver (col. 7. Sim discloses passive devices (PDEVs) and beaconing devices (BDEVs) in a distributed wireless network, each comprising a processor and transceiver); and configured to: receive from an access point (AP) a periodic advertisement including scheduling information for an advertisement message (ADV) from the ESL (col. 7-8; Fig. 16; Fig. 17; Fig. 21. The wireless device receives beacon frames periodically broadcast by a beaconing device, wherein the beacon frame includes scheduling information about the superframe structure including BMAS designations and available data slots); wherein the scheduling information includes an indication of a position in the sub-slot which has been associated with the periodic advertisement (col. 7-8; Fig. 21. The beacon frame includes the BMAS structure indicating specific BS positions — BS(0) and BS(1) — within the BMAS. These BS positions are sub-slots of the BMAS that are defined by and associated with the periodic beacon frame, and the beacon frame's scheduling information explicitly indicates which BS position within the BMAS will be used for the next superframe's beacon transmission, constituting an indication of a position in the sub-slot that has been associated with the periodic advertisement); and transmit the ADV to the AP in the indicated position in the indicated sub-slot according to the scheduling information (col. 7-8; Fig. 21. The wireless device transmits at specific timing positions within the BMAS sub-slots according to the timing information received in the beacon frame). Sim does not appear to explicitly disclose that the wireless device is "an electronic shelf label (ESL)" or that the beaconing device is specifically "an access point (AP)" for ESL systems. Graube, however, discloses electronic shelf labels (ESLs) and access points for ESL systems, as cited above with respect to claim 16. The rationale for combining Graube with Sim is articulated above with respect to claim 16 and is reincorporated herein by reference. Claim 25: The Sim/Graube combination discloses those limitations cited above. Sim further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: receive from the AP the periodic advertisement including an indication of one or more occupied sub-slots (col. 7-8; Fig. 21. The wireless device receives beacon frames including BMAS bitmap information indicating which MASs are designated as occupied beacon medium access slots); and transmit the ADV to the AP according to the scheduling information in an unoccupied sub-slot (col. 7-8; Fig. 21. The wireless device transmits during MASs not designated as BMASs, wherein such MASs constitute unoccupied slots available for device transmissions according to the superframe structure received in the beacon frame). Claim 28: The Sim/Graube combination discloses those limitations cited above. Sim further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: receive from the AP the periodic advertisement addressed to an ESL ID of the ESL comprising an indication of a sub-slot (col. 7-8; Fig. 17; Fig. 21. The wireless device receives beacon frames including BMAS bitmap information indicating designated MASs and available data slots, wherein the device is associated with a specific device identifier and the beacon frame conveys slot designation information to that device); and transmit the ADV to the AP in the indicated sub-slot (col. 7-8; Fig. 21. The wireless device transmits during designated sub-slots according to the slot designations received in the beacon frame). Claim 29: The Sim/Graube combination discloses those limitations cited above. Sim further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: receive from the AP an indication of a position in the sub-slot (col. 7-8; Fig. 21. The wireless device receives beacon frame information indicating specific BS positions within the BMAS sub-slots); and transmit the ADV to the AP in the indicated position in the indicated sub-slot (col. 7-8; Fig. 21. The wireless device transmits at specific timing positions within the BMAS sub-slots according to the timing information received in the beacon frame). Claim 30: The Sim/Graube combination discloses those limitations cited above. Sim further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: receive from the AP an advertising interval, a quantity of ADVs to transmit, and an indication of a channel in which to transmit the ADV (col. 7-8; Fig. 16; Fig. 17. The wireless device receives beacon frame information about the superframe structure with periodicity information indicating beacon intervals, transmission parameters, and designated MAS slots); and transmit the ADV to the AP according to the advertising interval, the quantity of ADVs to transmit, and the indication of the channel in which to transmit the ADV (col. 7-8. The wireless device transmits according to the periodicity information and slot designations received in the beacon frame) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 18-19 and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Sim/Graube in view of Lin (US 8,780,880 B2) . Claim 18: The Sim/Graube combination discloses those limitations cited above, but does not appear to explicitly describe "wherein the processor is further configured to: configure the one or more ESLs into ESL groups associated with times at which another radio frequency (RF) transmitter is not expected to transmit; and broadcast the periodic advertisement to the ESL groups at the times at which the other RF transmitter is not expected to transmit." Lin, however, discloses configuring devices into groups associated with times at which another radio frequency (RF) transmitter is not expected to transmit (col. 2, lines 64-67; col. 3, lines 1-6; col. 6, lines 25-34; Abstract. The first radio module obtains traffic and scheduling information of a second radio module co-located in the same device platform and determines a desired TDM pattern based on that information to prevent IDC interference with the second radio module, wherein transmissions are scheduled during times when the other RF transmitter is not expected to transmit to avoid coexistence interference by reducing time overlap between radio transmissions) and broadcast information to those groups at the times at which the other RF transmitter is not expected to transmit (col. 3, lines 1-10; Fig. 12, steps 1201-1204. The first radio module transmits coexistence pattern information based on the desired TDM pattern, wherein transmissions are scheduled during times when the second radio module is not expected to transmit to mitigate IDC interference). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the filing date of the invention to combine the TDM coexistence mechanism of Lin with the Sim/Graube combination. One would have been motivated to do this in order to avoid coexistence interference between the ESL system and other co-located RF transmitters operating in overlapping or adjacent radio spectrums, thereby reducing time overlap between radio transmissions and improving overall system performance. Lin, col. 2, lines 30-50; col. 6, lines 25-34; Sim, col. 7-8. Claim 19: The Sim/Graube/Lin combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lin further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to configure the ESL groups according to a static ratio of times at which the other RF transmitter is not expected to transmit and times at which the other RF transmitter is expected to transmit (col. 6, lines 25-40; col. 7, lines 33-42; Fig. 8. Lin determines the TDM pattern based on traffic scheduling parameters including the periodicity and transmission time of the second radio module to maximize scheduling flexibility subject to a limited level of IDC interference, wherein the ratio of times when transmissions occur versus times when they do not is determined based on the traffic pattern of the second radio module). The rationale for combining Lin with Sim/Graube is articulated above and is reincorporated herein by reference. Claim 26: The Sim/Graube/Lin combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lin further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to: receive information that configures the ESL into an ESL group associated with times at which another radio frequency (RF) transmitter is not expected to transmit (col. 2, lines 64-67; col. 3, lines 1-6; col. 6, lines 25-34. The first radio module receives configuration based on traffic and scheduling information of a second radio module co-located in the same device platform, wherein the first radio module is configured to operate during times when the second RF transmitter is not expected to transmit to prevent IDC interference); and receive the periodic advertisement that is broadcast to the ESL group at the time at which the other RF transmitter is not expected to transmit (col. 3, lines 1-10; Fig. 12, steps 1201-1204. The first radio module receives coexistence pattern information based on the desired TDM pattern, wherein the radio module receives transmissions during times when the second radio module is not expected to transmit to mitigate IDC interference). The rationale for combining Lin with Sim/Graube is articulated above and is reincorporated herein by reference. Claim 27: The Sim/Graube/Lin combination discloses those limitations cited above. Lin further discloses wherein the processor is further configured to receive information that configures the ESL group according to a static ratio of times at which the other RF transmitter is not expected to transmit and times at which the other RF transmitter is expected to transmit (col. 6, lines 25-40; col. 7, lines 33-42; Fig. 8. The first radio module receives configuration information based on the TDM pattern determined from traffic scheduling parameters including the periodicity and transmission time of the second radio module, wherein the ratio of times when transmissions occur versus times when they do not is determined based on the traffic pattern of the second radio module). The rationale for combining Lin with Sim/Graube is articulated above and is reincorporated herein by reference. Additional Relevant Prior Art Though not cited in the aforementioned rejections, the following references are nevertheless deemed to be relevant to Applicant’s disclosures: Haulk et al. (20030233280), directed to a method and apparatus for ensuring accurate display of data by an ESL during update. Zewail et al. (20250324303), directed to the ambient internet of things coexistence with ESL. Reddy et al. (20250175762), directed to a method for the iterative sub-selection of ESL devices for positioning. Robin et al. (20240267905), directed to a method for periodic advertisement subframe allocation based on transmit power. Reddy et al. (20250093453), directed to a method for self-positioning of ESL devices through inter-ESL links. Response to Arguments 35 U.S.C. § 101 Applicant argues that claims 16 and 24 are directed to a specific improvement in network and device operation rather than an abstract idea implemented on generic hardware, relying on Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp ., 822 F.3d 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Applicant further contends that the ordered combination of AP-side scheduling determination and ESL-side sub-slot-positioned transmission produces a technical effect — deterministic, low-power, enhanced communication — sufficient to transform the claims into patent-eligible subject matter under DDR Holdings, LLC v. Hotels.com, L.P., 773 F.3d 1245 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Applicant additionally argues that sub-slot-level scheduling and AP scan window determination represent non-conventional limitations under Berkheimer v. HP Inc ., 881 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2018) and Aatrix Software, Inc. v. Green Shades Software, Inc ., 882 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2018). These arguments are not persuasive. As set forth in the Office action, the claims, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation, are directed to coordinating and broadcasting advertisements between devices in response to specific instructions — specifically, broadcasting a periodic advertisement including scheduling information for an advertisement message, and then receiving or transmitting that advertisement message according to the scheduling information during a determined time period or indicated sub-slot. Such operations fall squarely within the "certain methods of organizing human activity" group of abstract ideas, specifically advertising, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2). The specific timing parameters recited in the claims — sub-slots, AP scan windows, positions within sub-slots, and scheduling information — are recitations of the abstract idea itself stated with increasing specificity, not additional elements that transform the nature of the claim. Enfish is inapposite. In Enfish , the claims were directed to a specific improvement to computer functionality itself — a self-referential table structure that improved the way the computer's own database operated. Here, by contrast, the claims do not improve the functioning of the access point, electronic shelf label, transceiver, or processor themselves. The claimed scheduling information, sub-slot determinations, and AP scan windows are parameters that dictate when wireless communications occur. Improving the timing of communications is not the same as improving the computer or network technology that performs those communications. The claims merely use generic wireless communication devices as tools to implement the abstract scheduling idea, which is precisely what Enfish held insufficient to confer eligibility. See also Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC , 838 F.3d 1253, 1262 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (claiming the use of existing technology in a particular context does not constitute an improvement to the technology itself). DDR Holdings is likewise inapposite. DDR Holdings required that the claims be directed to a solution necessarily rooted in computer technology that overcomes a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer networks. The problem addressed here — transmission timing conflicts between ESLs competing for AP access — is not a problem specifically arising in the realm of computer network architecture. It is the general, abstract problem of coordinating competing communications across a shared resource, which exists in any system where multiple entities must share access to a communication channel. The claimed solution — broadcasting scheduling information and then communicating according to that scheduling information — is the fundamental, abstract approach to any such coordination problem, regardless of the technological medium in which it is implemented. Applicant's Berkheimer/Aatrix argument that sub-slot scheduling and AP scan window determination are non-conventional is equally unpersuasive. The prior art of record — specifically Sim (US 8,320,340 B2) — demonstrates that superframe-based time slot scheduling, sub-slot designation via broadcast frames, and reception timing windows determined from broadcast scheduling information are well-understood, routine, and conventional in the wireless communication art. The application of these concepts to an ESL system does not render them non-conventional. Under Step 2A, Prong Two, the claims do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application. The recited access point, electronic shelf label, transceiver, and processor are generic wireless communication devices used as tools to implement the abstract scheduling scheme, but they do not effect a transformation of any article, do not require a particular machine beyond generic wireless hardware, and do not impose any meaningful limitation that applies the abstract idea in a technological way beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. See MPEP §§ 2106.05(a), (b), (c), and (f). Under Step 2B, the additional elements, individually and as an ordered combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. The use of generic wireless communication devices — a transceiver, a processor, an access point, and an electronic shelf label — to implement the abstract scheduling concept represents nothing beyond the generic operation of well-known wireless hardware, as evidenced by the prior art of record. Applicant has not provided evidence that these elements, either alone or in combination, were unconventional or yielded any improvement to computer functionality comparable to the improvements found in Enfish or DDR Holdings . Accordingly, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 16-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 101 is therefore maintained. 35 U.S.C. § 103 Applicant argues that the combination of Sim, Graube, and Lin fails to disclose or suggest the limitations of amended independent claims 16 and 24, specifically contending that: (1) Sim pertains to a distinctly different wireless communication process — a distributed MAC protocol for peer devices in an ad hoc network — and does not teach broadcasting scheduling information that determines an AP scan window within an indicated sub-slot associated with a periodic advertisement; (2) Graube does not teach receiver-scheduled solicitation with an AP-defined scan window and sub-slot control; and (3) Lin does not remedy these alleged deficiencies. These arguments unpersuasive. First, Applicant improperly attacks the references individually rather than addressing the combination as a whole. It is well-established that in an obviousness analysis, references must be considered for what they collectively teach in combination, not in isolation. In re Merck & Co. , 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The combination of Sim and Graube was not proposed because either reference alone discloses every limitation of the claimed invention. Rather, Graube supplies the ESL/AP system context and centralized architecture, and Sim supplies the sub-slot scheduling mechanism that enables efficient, collision-free communication within such a system. Applicant's arguments regarding Sim's peer-to-peer ad hoc architecture are therefore misdirected, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would readily have recognized that Sim's scheduling mechanism is directly applicable to Graube's ESL/AP system precisely because both address the same fundamental problem of managing wireless communication timing among multiple competing devices. Second, Applicant's argument that the combination fails to teach the new limitations of amended claim 16 — specifically, scheduling information configured to determine an AP scan window occurring within an indicated sub-slot associated with the periodic advertisement, and receiving the advertisement message during that determined AP scan window within the indicated sub-slot — is not persuasive. These limitations were already taught by Sim in the context of original dependent claim 23, which was rejected in the non-final Office action and left unamended. As set forth in the non-final Office action, Sim discloses that the beaconing device determines reception timing windows based on the superframe structure and slot designation information broadcast in the beacon frames, wherein the designated sub-slots within the superframe structure are defined by and associated with those very beacon frames. Applicant has simply incorporated the language of original dependent claim 23 into independent claim 16. Because the incorporated language was itself already rejected and not traversed on the merits, the amendment does not distinguish the prior art. Third, Applicant's argument that Graube does not teach the AP scan window/sub-slot association is unpersuasive because the rejection does not rely on Graube for this limitation. Graube is relied upon solely to supply the ESL/AP system context that Sim does not explicitly provide. Sim itself teaches the sub-slot scheduling and AP scan window concepts. Applicant cannot overcome the rejection by arguing that Graube alone does not teach a limitation that Sim, in combination with Graube, is relied upon to supply. Fourth, with respect to amended claim 24, Applicant argues that the ESL's transmission to a specific position within a sub-slot that is pre-associated with a particular periodic advertisement is not taught by the combination. This argument is likewise unpersuasive because this limitation was already taught by Sim in the context of original dependent claim 29, which was also rejected in the non-final Office action and left unamended. Applicant has incorporated the language of original dependent claim 29 into independent claim 24 without overcoming the underlying rejection. Finally, Applicant's argument regarding Lin is moot with respect to the amended independent claims. Lin is applied only to claims 18-19 and 26-27, none of which were substantively amended. Applicant's argument that Lin does not teach sub-slots associated with periodic advertisements has no bearing on those dependent claims, which are rejected on different grounds than the AP scan window and sub-slot language of amended claims 16 and 24. Accordingly, Applicant's arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive. The rejection of claims 16-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is therefore maintained. Conclusion 07-40 AIA 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 CHRISTOPHER BUSCH whose telephone number is (571)270-7953. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7. 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, Waseem Ashraf can be reached at 571-270-3948. 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. /CHRISTOPHER C BUSCH/Examiner, Art Unit 3621 /WASEEM ASHRAF/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 2 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 3 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 4 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 5 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 6 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 7 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 8 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 9 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 10 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 11 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 12 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 13 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 14 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 15 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 16 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 17 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 18 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 19 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 20 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 21 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 22 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 23 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 24 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 25 Art Unit: 3621 Application/Control Number: 19/104,962 Page 26 Art Unit: 3621
Prosecution Insights