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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of the amendment filed 3/16/2026. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10, 13 and 18-20 have been amended. Claim 3, 7, 12 has been canceled. Claims 21-23 have been added. Claims 1, 2, 4-6, 8-11 and 13-23 are pending and an action is as follows.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues, “Amended claim 1 recites connecting a processor of a first device to a processor of a second device via a first link and a second link between the first device and the second device, the first link and the second link within a link cluster, wherein the first link and the second link are a same protocol type… Uppala does not teach or suggest connecting a processor of a first device to a processor of a second device, as recited in claim 1. For example, Uppala does not teach that the first earbud (P) and the second earbud share a processor which is connected to the STA 410 by a first link and a second link. Thus, Uppala does not teach or suggest the features of amended claim 1 highlighted above.”
The Examiner disagrees. Uppala discloses that the earbuds (P and S) collectively shown as the peripheral device 620 comprise a processor which according to ¶91 of Uppala is achievable by the digital signal processors (DPSs) employing decoding algorithms. Therefore, the Decoder (and similarly the Encoder) of the wireless device 610 are each interpreted by the Examiner as the processor of the second device and the first device respectively). These DSPs (Encoder of the Wireless Device 610 and Decoder of the Earbuds/Peripheral Device 620) are connected by a first link (Bluetooth Connection 630) and a second link (WLAN Link 640), which demonstrates that Uppala discloses “connecting a processor of a first device to a processor of a second device, as recited in claim 1.” Thus, for example, Uppala does teach that the first earbud (P) and the second earbud share a processor which is connected to the STA 410 by a first link and a second link.
PNG
media_image1.png
320
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
All the claims that depend upon claim 1 are not allowable for the reasons expressed above and below by the Examiner.
The Arguments with respect to claims 13-23 have been found persuasive by the Examiner. Thus, the prior art rejections are withdrawn for claims 13-23.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. US 2021/0250879 (hereinafter Choi), in view of UPPALA et al. US 2023/0319711 (hereinafter UPPALA).
Regarding claim 1, Choi teaches a method, comprising:
connecting a first device to a second device via a first a first link and a second link between the first device and the second device, the first link and the second link within a link cluster; ([Choi, Figs. 10a-b and ¶12a-b, Choi, ¶163-¶166, ¶182- ¶186 and ¶295] The Connection State section of Choi details process of establishing connections (see figure below) between two or more devices (master and slaves as shown in Figs. 10a-b and 12a-b). While various combinations of first device and second device assignments may be applicable, in one particular instance it may be considered that the first device may be a master device and the second device may be at least one of the slave devices of the Fig. 10a-b having their respective links connecting the master and at least one of the slave devices as shown in the figure mentioned above. It is noted that the first link may be identified as the link between Slave #2 (also referenced as S2 or Device B)) and Master (also referenced as M or Device C). The links between the Slaves and Master of Fig. 10a are the links (ACL#1, ACL#2 and ACL#3 of Fig. 10a) of the link cluster.
receiving a request at the first device from the second device to change a link connection parameter of the first link within the link cluster; and (The first device (Device C - (Master or M)) receives from the second device (Device B (Slave #2 or S2)) a request to change a link connection parameter (shown as a power level and/or transmission power (tx power)) of the first link (ACL #2) within the link cluster as shown in Figs. 12b of Choi below.)
responsive to receiving the request, changing the link connection parameter of the first link within the link cluster. ([Choi, ¶297 and ¶304-¶313] Responsive to receiving the request, the link connection parameter of the first link (ACL#2) within the cluster of links connected in the devices as indicated in Fig. 10b and 12b is changed which is shown below and noted as an increase of the Power Level/transmission power.)
PNG
media_image2.png
284
446
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
359
446
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
350
532
media_image4.png
Greyscale
While Choi teaches the a first device shown as the master device (referred to by Choi as Master or M), a second device shown as at least one of the slave devices (referred to by Choi as Slave #1 – Slave #3 or S1-S3 ), and the link cluster comprising at more than one link (see the different links between M and S1-S3) with the first link being a link between Slave #2 and the Master, it does not explicitly teach wherein the second link is between the Master and the same device.
However, UPPALA teaches the claimed second device which is shown as Peripheral device 820 which may for example comprise a pair of ear buds (Also shown as device 420 in Fig. 4B, device 620 in Fig. 6 and device 820 in Figs. 8A-8B) connected to the claimed first device which is shown as Wireless device 810 (Also shown as STA 410), wherein Peripheral device 420/820, interpreted by the Examiner as the claimed first device, has two links (shown in Fig. 4B as 430A-430B being the claimed first link and second link) connecting the Peripheral device 420/820 to the STA/Wireless device 410/810 [UPPALA, Fig. 4B, 6, 8A and 8B, ¶75-¶77, ¶81-¶85 and ¶97-¶115.] UPPALA also teaches wherein the first link and the second link are a same protocol type [UPPALA, ¶77 (The STA 410 (implemented as a SoftAP according to ¶76 and also referred to as a wireless device 700 in ¶86) and the earbuds device 420 (also referred to as the peripheral device in ¶118) are communicatively connected to concurrent links 430A and 430B wherein each of the links 430A and 430B use Bluetooth over Internet Protocol (BToIP) as the same protocol type according to ¶75) and also see ¶97].
Additionally, UPPALA teaches connecting a processor of a first device to a processor of a second device via a first a first link and a second link between the first device and the second device, the first link and the second link within a link cluster;
([UPPALA, Fig. 6, ¶91] UPPALA teaches wherein Digital Signal Processors (DSPs) perform the encoding or decoding in conjunction with sampling the audio data. Thus, the Examiner has interpreted the Encoder 612 as the processor (DSP) of a first device 610 and the a Decoder 624 as the processor (DSP) of the second device 620 are connected to each other using the first link 630 and a second link 640 between the devices 610-620, wherein the links 630 and 640 are part of a link cluster)
PNG
media_image5.png
418
268
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
320
804
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine the master and slave network of Choi for controlling link parameters of the network links interconnecting the master and slaves, with the teachings of UPPALA, indicating that the slave device may be connected to a master device by a first link and second link thereby having a multi-link connection. The resulting benefit of the combination would have been the ability to provide communication redundancy, better levels throughput rate and increased coverage of the master and slave network [UPPALA, ¶51 and ¶78].
Regarding claim 4, Choi teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the link connection parameter of the first link within the link cluster includes a physical (PHY) parameter, and wherein the PHY parameter of the first link within the link cluster includes transmit power limitations.
([Choi, Fig. 12b)] Choi in Fig. 12b, shown above, indicates wherein the link connection parameter of the first link within the cluster includes a physical parameter wherein the physical parameter is the power level). ([Choi, Fig. 12b) ¶305] Choi in Fig. 12b, shown above, indicates wherein the link connection parameter of the first link within the cluster includes a physical parameter wherein the physical parameter is the transmission power according to the power level.)
Regarding claim 5, Choi, teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the link connection parameter of the first link within the link cluster includes a physical (PHY) parameter, and wherein the PHY parameter of the first link within the link cluster includes packet duration limitations.
([Choi, ¶308] Choi indicates wherein the link connection parameter of the first link within the cluster includes PHY parameter which includes transmission intervals packets (interpreted as packet duration limitations).)
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, in view of UPPALA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Min et al. 2017/0180103 (hereinafter Min).
Regarding claim 6, Choi, in view of UPPALA teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the link connection parameter of the first link within the link cluster includes a physical (PHY) parameter, ([Choi, Fig. 10b] The link connection parameters (shown as a transmit power (txpwr)) of a link within the link cluster as shown in Figs. 10b is a physical parameter of the link), but it does not teach that the parameter of the link includes a includes a modulation coding scheme limitation.
However, Min teaches that the PHY parameter of the first link includes a includes a modulation coding scheme limitation [Min, ¶67 (MCS may be adjusted)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Choi, in view of UPPALA indicating the ability to request changing of parameters of the link of the link cluster, with the teachings of Min, indicating that the MCS, in addition to power levels, may be adjusted. The benefiting result would have been improved spectrum efficiency [Min, ¶67].
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, in view of UPPALA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hurwitz 2021/0345052 (hereinafter Hurwitz).
Regarding claim 8, Choi, in view of UPPALA teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the request is a first request, the method further comprising: receiving a second request at the first device from the second device [Choi, Fig. 10a-b (Each of the devices (Slave Devices (S1-S3) and Master Device (M)) are devices and the first and second requests (Req) over the respective first and second links are also indicated in the figures)].
But it does not explicitly teach wherein the second request is a request for a status of one or more link connection parameters of the second link within the link cluster.
Hurwitz teaches wherein the request (indicated by Choi as the second request above) may be of a second type which is indicated as a status request which is for a status of one or more link connection parameters (such as signal strength or low to normal connectivity status) of connection/link between the primary device and the secondary device (interpreted as the second link within the link cluster wherein the link cluster also comprises at least one other link between the primary device and the host device.) [Hurwitz, ¶17-¶19], wherein the status includes a PHY characteristic of the second link within the link cluster [Hurwitz ¶19 (Status including a PHY characteristic of the second link within the link cluster is indicated as Signal Strength)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Choi, in view of UPPALA indicating the ability to send requests on the links of the link cluster, with the teachings of Hurwitz, indicating that the request may be a status request of connection parameters for the second link. The benefiting result would have been improved detection of link conditions and capabilities for better link management.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, in view of UPPALA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hurwitz and PERA et al. 2017/0093625 (hereinafter PERA).
Regarding claim 9, Choi, in view of UPPALA teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the request is a first request, the method further comprising: receiving a second request at the first device from the second device [Choi, Fig. 10a-b (Each of the devices (Slave Devices (S1-S3) and Master Device (M)) are devices and the first and second requests (Req) over the respective first and second links are also indicated in the figures)].
But it does not explicitly teach wherein the second request is a request for a status of one or more link connection parameters of the second link within the link cluster.
Hurwitz teaches wherein the request (indicated by Choi as the second request above) may be of a second type which is indicated as a status request which is for a status of one or more link connection parameters (such as signal strength or low to normal connectivity status) of connection/link between the primary device and the secondary device (interpreted as the second link within the link cluster wherein the link cluster also comprises at least one other link between the primary device and the host device.) [Hurwitz, ¶17-¶19], wherein the status is requested [Hurwitz ¶17].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Choi, in view of UPPALA indicating the ability to send requests on the links of the link cluster, with the teachings of Hurwitz, indicating that the request may be a status request of connection parameters for the second link. The benefiting result would have been improved detection of link conditions and capabilities for better link management.
But it does not teach that the status includes a number of links within the link cluster.
However, PERA teaches that the status includes a number of connections (links) within the link cluster [PERA, ¶11].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Choi, in view of UPPALA and Hurwitz, indicating the ability to send requests for status of links on the links of the link cluster, with the teachings of PERA, indicating that the status may be the number of links within the link cluster. The benefiting result would have been improved detection of link conditions, path options and link capabilities for better link management.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, in view of UPPALA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hurwitz and YANG et al. 2014/0087744 (hereinafter YANG).
Regarding claim 10, Choi, in view of UPPALA teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the request is a first request, the method further comprising: receiving a second request at the first device from the second device [Choi, Fig. 10a-b (Each of the devices (Slave Devices (S1-S3) and Master Device (M)) are devices and the first and second requests (Req) over the respective first and second links are also indicated in the figures)].
But it does not explicitly teach wherein the second request is a request for a status of one or more link connection parameters of the second link within the link cluster.
Hurwitz teaches wherein the request (indicated by Choi as the second request above) may be of a second type which is indicated as a status request which is for a status of one or more link connection parameters (such as signal strength or low to normal connectivity status) of connection/link between the primary device and the secondary device (interpreted as the second link within the link cluster wherein the link cluster also comprises at least one other link between the primary device and the host device.) [Hurwitz, ¶17-¶19], wherein the status is requested for a link within the link cluster [Hurwitz ¶17]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Choi, in view of UPPALA indicating the ability to send requests on the links of the link cluster, with the teachings of Hurwitz, indicating that the request may be a status request of connection parameters for the second link. The benefiting result would have been improved detection of link conditions and capabilities for better link management.
But it does not teach wherein the status includes a transmission mode for the second link within the link cluster.
However, YANG teaches the status includes a transmission mode for the second link within the link cluster [YANG, ¶129 (link status includes a transmission mode)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Choi, in view of UPPALA and Hurwitz, indicating the ability to send requests for status of links on the links of the link cluster, with the teachings of YANG, indicating that the status may include a transmission mode. The benefiting result would have been improved detection of link conditions, path options and link capabilities for better link management and link selection.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi, in view of UPPALA as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Desai et al. 2011/0021142 (hereinafter Desai).
Regarding claim 11, Choi, in view of UPPALA teaches the method of claim 1, wherein there is the connection parameter of the first link within the link cluster. ([Choi, Fig. 12b) ¶305] Choi in Fig. 12b, shown above, indicates wherein there is the link connection parameter of the first link within the cluster.), but it does not teach the connection parameter includes a duration of a connection interval.
However, Desai teaches the connection parameter includes a duration of a connection interval [Desai, ¶89 (connection parameter includes connection event interval)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the invention to combine the teachings of Choi, in view of UPPALA indicating the ability to request communication parameters for links on the links of the link cluster, with the teachings of Desai, indicating connection parameter includes a connection interval. The benefiting result would have been the ability to adjust and track link capabilities for better link management and link synchronization.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 13-23 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The Examiner has conducted a search of the Patent and Non-Patent Literature and was unable to find any prior art which teaches either solely or in combination with another reference the claim limitations of “…. a fourth link between the first device and the third device, and wherein the second device is connected to the third device via a fifth link and a sixth link between the second device and the third device, wherein the third link, the fourth, the fifth link, and the sixth link are within the link cluster…” with respect to claim 2 and “modifying a connection parameter of at least one link within the link cluster via the second link in the link cluster while in the power save mode; and exiting the power save mode and entering the active mode wherein, exiting the power save mode comprises waking the first link” with respect to claim 13, in combination with all the other claim limitations.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
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 LONNIE V SWEET whose telephone number is (571)270-3622. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
/LONNIE V SWEET/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights