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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: the recitation of “a computer readable memory” in line 1, change to - - a non-transitory computer readable memory - - . 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.
Claim 15 is 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.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the method" in line 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12, 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Feki et al. (US 2018/0138754).
Regarding claim 1, Feki teaches a method for managing communication availability by an ambient internet of things (A-loT) device (101a-c, fig. 2), the method (fig. 4) comprising: upon determination that a transaction is required (“is activation requested in the interval [0, T]”), checking energy storage levels of the A-loT device (step 401) and energy storage levels required to perform the transaction with a reader (steps 403 and 405); upon determination that there is insufficient energy storage levels to perform the transaction, sending an indication to the reader (step 407); and upon determination that there is sufficient energy storage levels to perform the transaction, proceeding with the transaction with the reader (complete the activity). See [0042]-[0050] and [0056]-[0057]).
Regarding claim 2, Feki further teaches wherein prior to sending the indication, determining that there is sufficient energy to send the indication ([0044]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 3, Feki further teaches wherein the indication is indicative of an out of power message (“is energy enough to get to the end of the interval T” and step 407, fig. 4 and [0057]).
Regarding claim 5, Feki further teaches monitoring energy storage levels ([0045] and [0057]).
Regarding claim 7, Feki further teaches wherein determination that a transaction is required includes receiving a transaction request for a downlink communication (“is activation requested in the interval [0, T], fig. 4).
Regarding claim 8, the claim is a corresponding apparatus claim and recites similar subject matter as in claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale is applied as for claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 9, Feki further teaches wherein prior to sending the indication, the machine executable instructions when executed by the processor further configure the apparatus to determine that there is sufficient energy to send the indication ([0044]-[0046]).
Regarding claim 10, Feki further teaches wherein the indication is indicative of an out of power message (“is energy enough to get to the end of the interval T” and step 407, fig. 4 and [0057]).
Regarding claim 12, Feki further teaches wherein the machine executable instructions when executed by the processor further configure the apparatus to monitor energy storage levels ([0045] and [0057]).
Regarding claim 14, Feki further teaches wherein determination that a transaction is required includes receiving a transaction request for a downlink communication (“is activation requested in the interval [0, T], fig. 4).
Regarding claim 15, the claim is a corresponding computer program product claim and recites similar subject matter as in claim 1. Therefore, similar rationale is applied as for claim 1 above.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 4, 6, 11 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feki in view of Maniyar (US 2019/0121416).
Regarding claims 4, 6, 11 and 13, Feki teaches all subject matter claimed as applied above except for the indication is indicative of one or more of a request to pause the transaction, a request to save a state of the transaction and a request to continue the transaction at a future time.
However, Maniyar teaches electronic device battery monitoring for transaction comprising an indication, wherein the indication is indicative of one or more of a request to pause the transaction, a request to save a state of the transaction and a request to continue the transaction at a future time (figs. 3, 6, [0045] and [0067]).
In view of Maniyar’ s teaching, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Feki by incorporating the teaching as taught by Maniyar so that the transaction can be continued at a later time or future time.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
References: Gupta et al. (US 12,457,630); Yang et al. (WO 2025/171732A1); Kim et al. (US 2022/0159671); Honore (US 2015/0363617) and Diorio (US 8,390,431) are cited because they are related to wireless communication device for managing power storage level.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuyen Kim Vo whose telephone number is (571)270-1657. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs: 8AM-6:30PM.
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, Steven Paik can be reached at 571-272-2404. 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.
/TUYEN K VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2876