As Peter pointed out, it appears the discovery application has been abandoned (I copied the following from the public PAIR -- Patent Application Retrieval System online):
Application Number:13/490,187Customer Number:-Filing or 371 (c) Date: 06-06-2012Status:Abandoned -- Failure to Respond to an Office ActionApplication Type:UtilityStatus Date:02-21-2014Examiner Name:SPIELER, WILLIAMLocation: [image: What is a Location?] <http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portal/info_location.htm> ELECTRONICGroup Art Unit:2159Location Date:-Confirmation Number:1020Earliest Publication No:US 2013-0331117 A1Attorney Docket Number:042933/418872Earliest Publication Date:12-12-2013Class / Subclass:707/758Patent Number:-First Named Inventor:Michael Probasco , Bedford, TX (US) all InventorsIssue Date of Patent:-First Named Applicant:-AIA (First Inventor to File):NoEntity Status:Undiscounted ------------------------------ Title of Invention:METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR WHITE SPACE DATABASE DISCOVERY And the related protocol discovery patent application is listed on PAIR as rejected: Application Number:13/339,036Customer Number:-Filing or 371 (c) Date: 12-28-2011Status:Final Rejection MailedApplication Type:UtilityStatus Date: 09-04-2014Examiner Name:SPIELER, WILLIAMLocation: [image: What is a Location?] <http://www.uspto.gov/ebc/portal/info_location.htm>ELECTRONICGroup Art Unit:2159Location Date:-Confirmation Number:7184Earliest Publication No:US 2013-0173651 A1Attorney Docket Number:042933/412230Earliest Publication Date:07-04-2013Class / Subclass:707/769Patent Number:-First Named Inventor:Michael Scott Probasco , Bedford, TX (US) all InventorsIssue Date of Patent:-First Named Applicant:-AIA (First Inventor to File):NoEntity Status:Undiscounted ------------------------------ Title of Invention:METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR REGULATORY DATABASE PROTOCOL DISCOVERY On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 10:36 AM, Anthony Mancuso <[email protected]> wrote: > Note that the above Whitespace DB discovery patent application includes a > reference to a companion Whitespace *protocol* discovery application: > > "White space database protocol discovery is further described with > reference to U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/339,036 filed Dec. 28, > 2011, which is hereby incorporated by reference herein." > > Tony > > On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 5:45 AM, Don Joslyn <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Try this link: >> >> >> http://appft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PG01&s1=%22White+Space+database+discovery%22&OS=%22White+Space+database+discovery%22&RS=%22White+Space+database+discovery%22 >> >> Regards, >> Don >> >> On Thu, Sep 18, 2014 at 3:16 AM, Ray Bellis <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> On 21 Aug 2014, at 15:54, Pete Resnick <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > PAWS participants: >>> > >>> > Somehow an IPR disclosure was filed on the PAWS protocol document for >>> which we did not see an announcement: >>> > >>> > https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/2340/ >>> > >>> > As far as I can tell from the title (given that the referenced IP is >>> an as-yet-unpublished patent), this applies to the database discovery >>> portion of the protocol. Since we have removed much of that discussion, we >>> expect mostly pre-configuration, and we have yet to (and may never) >>> complete the actual database discovery work, I think this may have no >>> effect on folks implementing the protocol. But I do need to confirm that >>> the WG is aware of this and still thinks it's OK to move forward with the >>> protocol document. >>> > >>> > If there are any objections to moving forward, I need to hear that >>> immediately. >>> > >>> > However, I would like to hear an overt, "Yes, understood, and it's >>> fine to move forward" from some folks who might be implementing the >>> protocol. >>> >>> I’m unable to find the text of the Nokia application, so it’s difficult >>> to assess. >>> >>> I note that they’ve quoted an application date of 29 April 2013, I’d be >>> amazed if there isn’t some prior work relating to database discovery (e.g. >>> the OFCOM spec, or ETSI EN 301 598) although that does depend on exactly >>> what mechanism it is they’re claiming. >>> >>> Given the WG's de-emphasis on DB discovery I see no reason to change >>> course based on this. >>> >>> Ray >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> paws mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws >>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> paws mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws >> >> >
_______________________________________________ paws mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/paws
