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
1. This action is in response the amendment and remarks filed on 26 August 2025.
Claims 1-20 are presently pending.
Response to Arguments
2. Applicant's arguments filed 08/26/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the disclosed headset is technically and functionally different than the claims client devices (wearable devices).
In response to applicant’s argument,
Examiner submits that the disclosed headset and claimed client devices are considered the same according to operating systems, Bluetooth standards and hardware specification since they are recognized under one device identity with multiple functional endpoints (e.g. audio output and/or microphone input). In fact, from technological perspective, both are classified as integrated audio unit even though they contain multiple components such as left and right speakers or microphone. Moreover, in device management as well as audio engineering left and right side (earbuds) are treated as stereo channels, not independent devices as applicant’s asserts. Therefore, regardless of whether they are referred to as headset or client devices, wearable device or earbuds, the disclosed headset and claimed client devices are functionally and technically regarded as one device with multiple channels. Therefore, the applied prior art of record indeed meets the required scope of the claimed client devices as currently presented in the claims.
Again, it is the Examiner’s position that Applicant has not yet submitted claims drawn to limitations, which define the operation and apparatus of Applicant’s disclosed invention in manner, which distinguishes over the prior art. As it is Applicant’s right to continue to claim as broadly as possible their invention. It is also the Examiner’s right to continue to interpret the claim language as broadly as possible. It is the Examiner’s position that the detailed functionality that allows for Applicant’s invention to overcome the prior art used in the rejection, fails to differentiate in detail how these features are unique. It is advised that, in order to further expedite the prosecution of the application in response to this action, Applicant should amend the base claims to describe in more narrow detail the true distinguishing features of Applicant’s claim invention.
Applicant has had an opportunity to amend the claimed subject matter, and has failed to modify the claim language to distinguish over the prior art of record by clarifying or substantially narrowing the claim language. Thus, Applicant apparently intends that a broad interpretation be given to the claims and the Examiner has adopted such in the present and previous Office action rejections. See In re Prater and Wei, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969), and MPEP 2111.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2022/0201416 in view of Anvekar et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2002/0068610.
Regarding claim 1, Young discloses system comprising: a first arbiter device (see Young, fig. 1 item 104 and ¶ [0052]; peripheral host device is disclosed); a first client device and a second client device configured as parts of a coupled set; and a wireless network architecture that communicatively couples the arbiter device (see Young, fig. 1 items, 102A and 102B and ¶ [0052]; first and second wearable device [earbuds] are disclosed), the first device, and the second device, the arbiter device configured to: receive a switch arbiter message from the first client device, and configured to determine that the coupled set includes the first client device and the second client device, and based on the determination, forward the switch arbiter message to the second client device (see Young, ¶ [0070]-[0071]; request to switch roles of the primary and second earbuds are received from first wearable device and determination is made to forward the request to second wearable device ).
Although Young discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose a second arbiter device and the switch arbiter message requesting communicative coupling with the second arbiter device instead of the first arbiter device.
Anvekar teaches a second arbiter device and the switch arbiter message requesting communicative coupling with the second arbiter device instead of the first arbiter device (see Anvekar, ¶ [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Anvekar with that of Young in order to efficiently switch wireless Bluetooth connections from one device to another.
Regarding claim 2, Young-Anvekar teaches wherein the first arbiter device is configured to receive an acknowledgement from the second client device, and in response to the acknowledgment, disconnect the second device (see Young, ¶ [0073]).
Regarding claim 3, Young-Anvekar teaches wherein the first client device is configured to receive an acknowledgment from the first arbiter device, and in response to the acknowledgment, disconnect a connection to the first arbiter device (see Young, ¶ [71]).
Regarding claim 4, Young-Anvekar teaches wherein the first client device is configured to receive the switch arbiter message from the second arbiter device, and forward the switch arbiter message to the arbiter device (see Young, ¶ [0072]).
Regarding claim 5, Young-Anvekar teaches wherein the first client device is configured to make a determination that the second arbiter device is a trusted arbiter device, and based on the determination, forward the switch arbiter message to the first arbiter device (see Young, ¶ [0065] and [0070]).
Regarding claim 6, Young-Anvekar teaches wherein the first client device is configured to receive an acknowledgement of the switch arbiter message from the first arbiter device, and based on the acknowledgment, disconnect from the first arbiter device (see Young, ¶ [0071]).
Regarding claim 20, Young discloses determine that the first device is in a set with a second device, and forward to the second device based on the determination (see Young, ¶ [0071] and [0072]; a determination of the switch role request is made and accordingly forwarded the message to second wearable device).
Although Young discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose a wireless electronic device configured to receive a switch arbiter message communicatively decoupling a first device from the wireless electronic device and, instead, communicatively coupling the first device to another wireless electronic device, disconnect the first device from the wireless electronic device.
Anvekar teaches a wireless electronic device configured to receive a switch arbiter message communicatively decoupling a first device from the wireless electronic device and, instead, communicatively coupling the first device to another wireless electronic device, disconnect the first device from the wireless electronic device (see Anvekar, ¶ [0019]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Anvekar with that of Young in order to effective stop wireless communication upon switching connections.
4. Claim(s) 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Anvekar and further in view of Srivastava et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0374820.
Regarding claim 7, although Young discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose wherein the first client device is configured to determine that the second arbiter device is an unauthorized device, disconnect a connection to the second arbiter device, and deny future switch arbiter messages from the second arbiter device.
Srivastava teaches wherein the first client device is configured to determine that the second arbiter device is an unauthorized device, disconnect a connection to the second arbiter device, and deny future switch arbiter messages from the second arbiter device (see Srivastava, ¶ [0037] and [0052]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Srivastava with that of Young-Anvekar in order to terminate connections upon successful transfer of role.
Regarding claim 8, Young-Anvekar-Srivastava teaches wherein the first client device is configured to reconnect with the first arbiter device, and inform the first arbiter device that the second arbiter device is the unauthorized device (see Young, ¶ [0065] and Srivastava, ¶ [0037]).
Regarding claim 9, Young-Anvekar-Srivastava teaches wherein the first client device is configured to receive a second switch arbiter message from a third arbiter device, make a determination that the third arbiter device is an untrusted arbiter device, and based on the determination, reject the second switch arbiter message (see Young, ¶ [0070] and Srivastava, ¶ [0038]).
Regarding claim 10, Young-Anvekar-Srivastava teaches wherein the first client device is configured to inform the first arbiter device whether the third arbiter device is a trusted arbiter device during a connection establishment with the first arbiter device (see Young, ¶ [0050] and [0052]).
5. Claim(s) 11-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young in view of Anvekar and further in view of Shahbazi Mirzahasanloo et al., U. S. Patent Publication No. 2020/0278832.
Regarding claim 11, although Young-Anvekar discloses the invention substantially as claimed, it does not explicitly disclose wherein the first arbiter device maintains a first list of trusted arbiter devices and the first client device maintains a second list of trusted arbiter devices.
Shahbazi teaches wherein the first arbiter device maintains a first list of trusted arbiter devices and the first client device maintains a second list of trusted arbiter devices (see Shahbazi, ¶ [0038]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling data of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Shahbazi with that of Young-Anvekar in order to enhance security communications between the devices.
Regarding claim 12, Young-Anvekar-Shahbazi teaches wherein the first list of trusted arbiter devices and the second list of trusted arbiter devices are maintained in sync (see Shahbazi, ¶ [0021] and [0038]).
Regarding claim 13, Young-Anvekar-Shahbazi teaches wherein the first arbiter device is configured to send the first list of trusted arbiter devices to the second client device based on a determination that the coupled set includes the first client device and the second client device (see Young, ¶ [0071] and Shahbazi, ¶ [0038]).
Regarding claim 14, Young-Anvekar-Shahbazi teaches wherein the first client device is configured to remove the second arbiter device from the second list of trusted arbiter devices based on a failed authentication of the second arbiter device to the first client device (see Young, ¶ [0073] and Shahbazi, ¶ [0038]).
Regarding claim 15, Young-Anvekar-Shahbazi teaches wherein the first arbiter device is configured to send a coupled set change message to the second client device based on a determination that the coupled set includes the first client device and the second client device (see Young, ¶ [0070]).
Regarding claim 16, Young-Anvekar-Shahbazi teaches wherein the coupled set change message reflects a removal of the second client device from the coupled set (see Young, ¶ [0073] - [0074]).
Regarding claim 17, Young-Anvekar-Shahbazi teaches wherein the second client device is configured to receive the switch arbiter message from the first arbiter device, disconnect a connection to the first arbiter device, and search for a connection request from the second arbiter device (see Young, ¶ [0070], [0073] and Anvekar, ¶ [0019]).
Regarding claim 18, Young-Anvekar-Shahbazi teaches further comprising a third client device configured as a part of the coupled set wherein the first client device and the third client device are associated with the same position within the coupled set (see Young, ¶ [0023]- [0024] and [0070]).
Regarding claim 19, Young-Anvekar-Shahbazi teaches wherein the first arbiter device disconnects a first connection to the first client device and establishes a second connection with the third client device based on the first client device and the third client device having the same position within the coupled set (see Young, ¶ [0070] - [0071]).
Prior Art of Record
6. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure. Please refer to form PTO-892 (Notice of Reference Cited) for a list of relevant prior art.
Conclusion
7. 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 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 MOHAMED IBRAHIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1132. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9:30AM to 6:00PM.
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, John Follansbee can be reached at 571-272-3964. 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.
/MOHAMED IBRAHIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2444