www.uspto.gov
`
`UNITEDSTATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
`United States Patent and Trademark Office
`Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
`
`17/441,753
`
`09/22/2021
`
`Hiroaki SUDO
`
`WASHN-65121
`
`8847
`
`PEARNE & GORDON LLP
`1801 EAST 9TH STREET
`SUITE 1200
`
`CLEVELAND,OH 44114-3108
`
`NGUYEN, HANH N
`
`2413
`
`04/19/2024
`
`ELECTRONIC
`
`Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
`
`The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
`
`Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
`following e-mail address(es):
`
`patdocket@ pearne.com
`
`PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
`
`

`

`Application No.
`Applicant(s)
`171441,753
`SUDO, Hiroaki
`
`Office Action Summary Art Unit|AIA (FITF)StatusExaminer
`HANH N NGUYEN
`2413
`Yes
`
`
`
`-- The MAILING DATEof this communication appears on the cover sheet with the correspondence address --
`Period for Reply
`
`A SHORTENED STATUTORYPERIOD FOR REPLYIS SET TO EXPIRE 3 MONTHS FROM THE MAILING
`DATE OF THIS COMMUNICATION.
`Extensionsof time may be available underthe provisions of 37 CFR 1.136(a). In no event, however, may a reply betimely filed after SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing
`date of this communication.
`If NO period for reply is specified above, the maximum statutory period will apply and will expire SIX (6) MONTHSfrom the mailing date of this communication.
`-
`- Failure to reply within the set or extended period for reply will, by statute, cause the application to become ABANDONED (35 U.S.C. § 133).
`Any reply received by the Office later than three months after the mailing date of this communication, evenif timely filed, may reduce any earned patent term
`adjustment. See 37 CFR 1.704(b).
`
`Status
`
`
`
`1)M) Responsive to communication(s) filed on 3/5/2024.
`C} A declaration(s)/affidavit(s) under 37 CFR 1.130(b) was/werefiled on
`2a)[¥) This action is FINAL.
`2b) (J This action is non-final.
`3) An election was madeby the applicant in responseto a restriction requirement set forth during the interview
`on
`; the restriction requirement and election have been incorporated into this action.
`4)(2) Since this application is in condition for allowance except for formal matters, prosecution as to the merits is
`closed in accordance with the practice under Exparte Quayle, 1935 C.D. 11, 453 O.G. 213.
`
`Disposition of Claims*
`1,3-6,8-18 and 20-21 is/are pending in the application.
`)
`Claim(s)
`5a) Of the above claim(s) _ is/are withdrawn from consideration.
`C} Claim(s)__ is/are allowed.
`Claim(s) 1,3-6,8-18 and 20-21 is/are rejected.
`(] Claim(s)__ is/are objectedto.
`C] Claim(s
`are subjectto restriction and/or election requirement
`)
`* If any claims have been determined allowable, you maybeeligible to benefit from the Patent Prosecution Highway program at a
`participating intellectual property office for the corresponding application. For more information, please see
`http://www.uspto.gov/patents/init_events/pph/index.jsp or send an inquiry to PPHfeedback@uspto.gov.
`
`) ) ) )
`
`Application Papers
`10) The specification is objected to by the Examiner.
`11)0) The drawing(s) filedon__ is/are: a)(J accepted or b)( objected to by the Examiner.
`Applicant may not request that any objection to the drawing(s) be held in abeyance. See 37 CFR 1.85(a).
`Replacement drawing sheet(s) including the correction is required if the drawing(s) is objected to. See 37 CFR 1.121(d).
`
`Priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119
`12)7) Acknowledgment is made of a claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. § 119(a)-(d)or (f).
`Certified copies:
`c)Z None ofthe:
`b)() Some**
`a)C All
`1.1.) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received.
`2.2) Certified copies of the priority documents have been received in Application No.
`3.1.) Copies of the certified copies of the priority documents have been receivedin this National Stage
`application from the International Bureau (PCT Rule 17.2(a)).
`*“ See the attached detailed Office action for a list of the certified copies not received.
`
`Attachment(s)
`
`1)
`
`Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)
`
`2) (J Information Disclosure Statement(s) (PTO/SB/08a and/or PTO/SB/08b)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`
`3)
`
`4)
`
`(LJ Interview Summary (PTO-413)
`Paper No(s)/Mail Date
`(Qj Other:
`
`PTOL-326 (Rev. 11-13)
`
`Office Action Summary
`
`Part of Paper No./Mail Date 20240413
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/441,753
`Art Unit: 2413
`
`Page 2
`
`DETAILED ACTION
`
`Notice of Pre-AlA orAIA 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
`
`Claims 1,5,8,9,10,12,20,21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
`
`In claim 1,21 the claimed limitation “the information on the other interference
`
`including the second interference includes information on the second interference” on
`
`lines 13-14 is objected to because it is redundant and does not provide a clear meaning.
`
`Further; is “the other interference” on line 10 referred to “another interference”
`
`on line 8 ? If not, then “the other interference” on line 10 lacks of antecedent basic.
`
`Further, in claims 1,12,20,21 examiner believes the claimed “priority of the
`
`second radio system over the first radio system”is not described because the
`
`specification described on par[0182-0190,0192-0194, 207-209]; pages 37-39,41 and
`
`figures 13, 14,16 “the priority of ambient noise” which is different from the claimed
`
`“oriority of the second radio system over the first radio system”.
`
`In claim 5, the claimed limitation “the controller generates the information on
`
`the third interference, not including a comparison result with any threshold greater than
`
`the fourth threshold and included in the plurality of third thresholds” is objected to
`
`becauseit is not clearly defined. It is noted that applicant did not provide an explanation
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/441,753
`Art Unit: 2413
`
`Page 3
`
`of this claimed limitation that Examiner had objected in the previous action on
`
`12/6/2023.
`
`In claim 8, the claimed limitation “the second radio system is higher in priority
`
`than the first radio system” is objected to becauseit is not described in the
`
`specification. See the specification described on par[0182-0190,0192-0194,207-209];
`
`pages 37-39,41 and figures 13, 14,16.
`
`Further, as shown in claim 1; the notification information does not include third
`
`interference. How can the controller in claim 8, which depends on claim 1, be able to
`
`reduce the third interference in the notification information ?.
`
`In claim 9, examiner suggests the claimed “the information on”on lines 2,3 be
`
`deleted to avoid redundant.
`
`In claim 10, examiner suggests the “information on”on lines 1, 5 be deleted
`
`becauseit is redundant.
`
`Appropriate correction is required.
`
`Response to Arguments
`
`Applicant's arguments filed 3/5/2024 have been fully considered but they are not
`
`persuasive.
`
`Applicant argued on pages 8-10 of the Remark that the fig.8 of Gilson et al. shows
`
`a single radio system while the claimed limitation require classify the interference into
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/441,753
`Art Unit: 2413
`
`Page 4
`
`the second interference and the third interference; and the second interference and the
`
`third interference are from different radio systems.
`
`Examiner does not agree because Gilson etal. discloses in fig.1; col.12; lines 13-
`
`22; that an interfering device 805 { see fig.8) in wireless network 108 ( fig.1) supports
`
`satellite/Internet/cellular wireless (support a second radio system different from the
`
`first radio system) intentionally disables the security system (see fig.8;first radio
`
`system) by increasing the wireless noise (second interference) of the security devices
`
`803a,b and decreasing wireless noises from security devices 803c,d (see col.16; lines 15-
`
`25; third interference).The wireless node/security devices 803 shown in fig.8 operate in
`
`LORAWAN ( the first radio system; see col.2; lines 58-63).
`
`Applicant further argued on page 9 that Gilson etal. fails to determine the
`
`priority of radio system and add the priority information to the notification information.
`
`Examiner does not agree becausethe applicant ‘s specification on par[0182-
`
`0190,0192-0194, 207-209]; pages 37-39,41 and figures 13, 14,16 describes “the priority
`
`of ambient noise”; but does not describe “determining priority of radio system”.
`
`Examiner relies in col.13; lines 40-50 of Gilson et al. that discloses assigning a
`
`maximum priority to the wireless noise increase and adds priority information indicating
`
`the determined priority to the notification information (see col.13; lines 40-45; security
`
`device 803 assigns high priority to message (notification information) indicating noise
`
`increased (information indicating priority of the notification information)).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/441,753
`Art Unit: 2413
`
`Page 5
`
`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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application
`for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as
`the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of
`the claimed invention.
`
`Claims 1,3-6,8-18,20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(2) as being anticipated by
`
`Gilson et al.(US Pat.10,490,059).
`
`In claims 1,12,21 Gilson et al. discloses a base station that supports a first radio
`
`system and that belongsto a first network (see fig.8; col.11; line 63 to col.12; line 1;
`
`col.2; lines 50-65; a monitor 802 (a base station) in a resident home ( a first network).
`
`The monitor 802 functions as a wireless gateway 101 shown in fig.1 to operate in low-
`
`power protocol such as LORAWAN (supportsa first radio system)), the base station
`
`comprising: an interferenceclassification processor ( see fig.2; monitor 802 includes a
`
`processor 201 (interference classification processor)) that classifies interference
`
`including first interference from a radio apparatus that supports the first radio system
`
`and that belongsto the first network (see fig.8; fig.10; steps 1002, 1003, col.15; line 12-
`
`65; the monitor 802 receives noise measurements from security device 803a(first
`
`interference from a radio apparatus) belongs to Zone 1 (the first network) and supports
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/441,753
`Art Unit: 2413
`
`Page 6
`
`LORAWAN (col.2; lines 57-63; first radio system), and second interference from a radio
`
`apparatus that supports the first radio system and that belongs to a second network
`
`different from the first network (col.16; lines 12-27; noise measurements from other
`
`security devices 803c,d in different zone 2 and also support LORAWAN), a controller
`
`that outputs notification information including information on the first interference and
`
`information on another interference including the second interference to a control
`
`apparatus ofthe first network (see fig.10; step 1006; col.16; lines 55-60; the monitor
`
`802 sends a message ( a notification information) indicating that one or more devices
`
`803 is in an interference condition ( the first and the second interferences) to a security
`
`personnel/or a network controller 804 associated with the security system shownin
`
`fig.8 (col.12; lines 8-12; a control apparatus) associated with the resident home ( the
`
`first network). The messageindicates the device 803 is interfered);
`
`the interference classification processor classifies the other interference into the second
`
`interference and third interference from a radio apparatus that supports a second radio
`
`system different from the first radio system (see fig.1; col.12; lines 13-22; it is noted that
`
`an interfering device 805 ( see fig.8) in wireless network 108 ( fig.1) supports
`
`satellite/Internet/cellular wireless (support a second radio system different from the
`
`first radio system) intentionally disables the security system (see fig.8; first radio
`
`system) by increasing the wireless noise (second interference) of the security devices
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/441,753
`Art Unit: 2413
`
`Page 7
`
`803a,b and decreasing wireless noises from security devices 803c,d (see col.16; lines 15-
`
`25; third interference);
`
`the information on the other interference including the second interference includes
`
`information on the second interference and information on the third interference (
`
`addressed in the above limitation; see col. 1; col.12; lines 13-22 and col.16; lines 15-25).
`
`Gilson et al. further discloses the controller determines a priority of the second radio
`
`system over the first radio system (as shown in the specification described on par[0182-
`
`0190,0192-0194,207-209]; pages 37-39,41 and figures 13, 14,16 which describes “the
`
`priority of ambient noise”; examiner relies in col.13; lines 40-50 of Gilson et al. that
`
`discloses assigning a maximum priority to the wireless noise increase) and adds priority
`
`information indicating the determined priority to the notification information ( see
`
`col.13; lines 40-45; security device 803 assigns high priority to message ( notification
`
`information) indicating noise increased ( information indicating priority of the
`
`notification information)).
`
`In claim 8, due to the objection of the claimed limitation “the second radio
`
`system is higher in priority than the first radio system” addressed above, examiner holds
`
`the consideration until applicant files a response. Gilson et al. further discloses the
`
`controller reduces the information on the third interference in the notification
`
`information (see col.18; lines 8-25; in response to determine the interference is over
`
`based on the wireless noise falls under the threshold; the monitor 802 determines that
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/441,753
`Art Unit: 2413
`
`Page 8
`
`other security devices 803 transmitted normal wireless measurements(
`
`reduce/decreasea notification information on frequency)).
`
`In claim 10, Gilson et al. discloses the controller decreases a notification
`
`frequency of the information on the third interference in a steady state ( see col.18;
`
`lines 8-25; in response to determine the interference is over based on the wireless noise
`
`falls under the threshold; the monitor 802 determines that other security devices 803
`
`transmitted normal wireless measurements ( reduce/decrease a notification
`
`information on frequency)), with respect to a notification frequency of the information
`
`on the third interference in a state other than the steady state ( see col.18; lines 32-47;
`
`sending an alarm message to home operator when monitor 802 fails to receive keep
`
`alive message from interfered security devices 803), and the steady state is a state
`
`wherean interference amount of the third interference exceeds a predetermined
`
`amount continuously over a predetermined time ( see fig.10; step 1002; col.15; lines 15-
`
`22; monitor 802 determines an interference at the security device 803 based on noise
`
`measurement remains over a certain threshold for a certain period of time and/or
`
`steadily increasing over the certain period of time ( the steady state)).
`
`In claim 3, Gilson et al. discloses the information on the first interference
`
`indicates a comparison result of an interference amount ofthe first interference with a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/441,753
`Art Unit: 2413
`
`Page 9
`
`first threshold ( see fig.10; step 1002; col.15; lines 12-20; monitor 802 determines the
`
`noise from security device 803 remains over a certain threshold ( a first threshold) for a
`
`period of time), the information on the second interference indicates a comparison
`
`result of an interference amount of the second interference with a second threshold (
`
`see col.15; lines 34-40; monitor 802 determines interferenceif it fails to receive
`
`transmission of from security device 803 for more than a threshold amount of time(
`
`second threshold)), the information on the third interference indicates a comparison
`
`result of an interference amount of the third interference with a third threshold ( see
`
`col.16; lines 15-25; monitor 802 detects noise from security devices 803c,d is relatively
`
`smaller) and the number of the third thresholds is greater than the number ofthe first
`
`thresholds.
`
`In claim 4, Gilson et al. discloses the controller determines any one ofa plurality of
`
`levels by comparing an interference amount of the third interference with a plurality of
`
`third thresholds and sets the determined level for the information on the third
`
`interference (see col.16; lines 65-col.17; line 10; monitor 802 determines different
`
`threat levels).
`
`In claim 5, Gilson et al. discloses when the interference amount of the third interference
`
`is less than or equal to a fourth threshold included in the plurality of third thresholds,
`
`the controller generates the information on the third interference, not including a
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/441,753
`Art Unit: 2413
`
`Page 10
`
`comparison result with any threshold greater than the fourth threshold and included in
`
`the plurality of third thresholds (see fig.5A, col.6; lines 24-30; the wireless node 300
`
`waits until a noise measurement of channel falls below the fixed noise threshold before
`
`attempting to transmit) .
`
`In claim 6, Gilson et al. discloses the plurality of third thresholds is set based on one or
`
`more communication modes in the first radio system ( see col.2; lines 58-67; the
`
`wireless nodes and gateways communicate via low power protocol while noise
`
`interference is determined based on the interfering device 805 that operates in cellular
`
`network ( col.3; lines 55-60) and/or a difference in transmission power in the one or
`
`more communication modes (see col.12; lines 50-54; the security device 803 determines
`
`noise level for a particular channel or band of channels by measuring strength of signal
`
`received).
`
`In claim 9, Gilson et al. discloses the controller sets a notification frequency of the
`
`information on the third interference to be different from a notification frequency of
`
`the information on the first interference and/or the information on the second
`
`interference ( see col.12; lines 50-55; the security device 803 determines noise level for
`
`a band of channels ( a notification frequency).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/441,753
`Art Unit: 2413
`
`Page 11
`
`In claim 15, Gilson et al. discloses the controller outputs first notification information
`
`including the information on the first interference ( see col.12; lines 50-60; the security
`
`device 803 determines noise level at a particular channel) and second notification
`
`information including the information on the second interference at frequencies
`
`different from each other ( see col.12; lines 50-60; the security device 803 determines
`
`noise level for a band of channels (second interference at frequencies different from
`
`each other)).
`
`In claim 16, Gilson et al. discloses in the notification information, information on the
`
`first interference due to communication in a first communication mode ( see fig.9; step
`
`909; col.2; lines 58-64 and col.13; lines 52-60; interference of security device 803
`
`operates in low power protocol) and information on the first interference due to
`
`communication in a second communication mode are distinguished from each other (
`
`see col.12; lines 12-22; and col.3; lines 55-60; Interference caused by interfering device
`
`805 operate in cellular network).
`
`In Claim 18, Gilson et al. discloses the first communication mode is a communication
`
`mode that uses a spread spectrum mode (see col.2; lines 58-65; the wireless node 102a-
`
`e and gateways 101 operate in low power protocol including LORAWAN), and the
`
`second communication mode is a communication mode that does not use a spread
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/441,753
`Art Unit: 2413
`
`Page 12
`
`spectrum mode (see col.3; lines 55-60; network 108 includes computing device 109
`
`operatein cellular network).
`
`In claim 17, Gilson et al. discloses in the notification information, information on the
`
`first interference in a channel to be assigned toafirst terminal that uses the first
`
`communication mode (see fig.1; col.2; lines 58-65; the wireless node 102 operatesin
`
`low-power protocol including LORAWAN (a first communication mode) suffers wireless
`
`noise for a particular channel (col.12; lines 50-53) from the interfering device 805 (
`
`col.12; lines 12-30)), information on the first interference in a channel to be assigned to
`
`a second terminal that uses the second communication mode (see col.12; lines 12-25,
`
`interfering device 805 operating in cellular network (col.3; lines 55-60; a second
`
`terminal uses a second communication mode) increases noise to disable the security
`
`device); and information on the first interference in a channel allowed to be assigned to
`
`any ofthe first terminal and the second terminal are distinguished from one another
`
`(the wireless device 802 is different from the interfering device 805).
`
`In claim 20, Gilson et al. discloses the information on the second interference indicates a
`
`statistical amount of an interference amount of the radio interference (see col.12; lines
`
`50-59; the security device 803 samples and measures signal strength received over a
`
`small period of time, or sample the noise level on band of channels to determine
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/441,753
`Art Unit: 2413
`
`Page 13
`
`wireless noise level); and an interference amount of the ambient noise in a state where
`
`the second radio system is higher in priority than the first radio system (see col.5; lines
`
`58-col.6; line 10; fig.4; step 402; the wireless node 300 functions as a security device 803
`
`to indicate a high priority when a door in armed mode has been opened ( second radio
`
`system is higher in priority). In step 403; the wireless node 300 selects a wireless noise
`
`threshold (interference amount of the ambient noise) based on the determined
`
`priority).
`
`In claim 14, Gilson et al. discloses the information on the first interference indicates a
`
`statistical amount of the first interference in all of the plurality of channels ( see col.12;
`
`lines 50-54; the security device 803 determines noise level for a particular channel or
`
`band of channels by measuring strength of signal received).
`
`In claim 11, Gilson et al. discloses the controller adds notification presence/absence
`
`information indicating whether the information on the third interference is included in
`
`the notification information to the notification information ( see col.3; lines 30-50; the
`
`network computing device 109/controller 804 ( see col.12; lines 7-10) detects alarm
`
`condition, sends instructions to the security/traffic lights device 803 ( notification
`
`information) to change timing due to the increased interference).
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/441,753
`Art Unit: 2413
`
`Page 14
`
`In claim 13, Gilson et al. discloses in col.12; lines 50-59; security device determines noise
`
`level over a band of channels ( interference over two of more channels); and also
`
`discloses the statistical amount is at least one of a mean, a maximum, a minimum
`
`median of an interference amount of the first interference in each of the two or more
`
`channels (see col.12; lines 50-59; the security device 803 samples and measures signal
`
`strength received over a small period of time, or sample the noise level on band of
`
`channels ( statistical amount is at least one of a mean, maximum, a minimum median of
`
`interference)).
`
`Conclusion
`
`THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 eventafirst reply is filed within
`
`TWO MONTHS ofthe 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
`
`extension fee 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/441,753
`Art Unit: 2413
`
`Page 15
`
`Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
`
`examiner should be directed to HANH N NGUYEN whosetelephone number is (571)272-
`
`3092. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7am-3PM.
`
`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, Un C Cho can be reached on 571 272 7919. The fax phone number for the
`
`organization wherethis 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.
`
`

`

`Application/Control Number: 17/441,753
`Art Unit: 2413
`
`Page 16
`
`/HANH N NGUYEN/
`Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2413
`
`