DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is responsive to Applicant’s remarks submitted April 14, 2026. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant arguments have been carefully considered, but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection set forth below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 4-7, 9-12, 15-17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Publication No. 2021/0120555 A1 (hereinafter “Badic”), in view of U.S. Publication No. 2020/0145493 A1 (hereinafter “Wang”).
Regarding claims 1, 11, 12, and 17: Badic teaches a wireless communication system comprising: at least one radio transceiver unit configured to facilitate communication, directly between two or more user devices, up to and exceeding an intended range, wherein facilitating the communication comprises tuning, during communication directly between at least a portion of the two or more user devices, one or more of at least one radio frequency (RF) band, at least one transmitter modulation and coding scheme (MCS), transmitter output power associated with at least one of the two or more user devices, and one or more coding techniques (see, e.g., figures 3, 4, 7; [0065], [0082], [0091], [0106], [0170] – devices transmitting over a decentralized D2D network tune their frequencies for communication; see also [0240], [0241], [0274] – note MCS, power, and coding adjustment); and
at least one network execution unit configured to perform one or more network-related functions related to at least one of establishing and maintaining at least one wireless network, among the two or more user devices, that is infrastructure-free and self-forming in nature, wherein performing one or more network-related functions comprises facilitating network-related participation from each of the two or more user devices and carrying out one or more network synchronization functions during communication directly between at least a portion of the two or more user devices (see, e.g., [0087]-[0093]; note device signaling and synchronization functionalities in the decentralized D2D network).
Badic does not explicitly state “wherein each of the two or more user devices comprises common networking software enabling shared network management and control by the two or more user devices without centralized infrastructure.” To the extent this feature is not inherent to the system of Badic (e.g. by virtue of software implementations within the D2D devices therein), it is nevertheless taught in Wang (see, e.g., [0028]; note also [0025], [0026]). It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Wang, such as the software implementation and/or dynamic adjustment functionality, within the system of Badic, in order to adapt nodes of a decentralized network to varying conditions.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 1 is applicable to the apparatus, method, and medium of claims 11, 12, and 17, respectively.
Regarding claim 4: Badic modified by Wang further teaches wherein the wireless communication system is incorporated into one or more of at least one dongle form factor, at least one radio speaker microphone, and at least one wireless intercom (see, e.g., [0073]).
Regarding claim 5: Badic modified by Wang further teaches wherein the wireless communication system is incorporated into at least one relay node in connection with at least one of one or more communication range extension operations and one or more communication operations in one or more radio frequency-impaired environments (see, e.g., [0089], [0233], [0248]-[0249]; note relay functionality).
Regarding claims 6, 15, and 19: Badic modified by Wang further teaches wherein performing one or more network-related functions comprises at least one of (i) performing one or more network-related functions related to at least one of establishing and maintaining at least one wireless network in accordance with direct user device to user device topology, and (ii) performing one or more network-related functions related to at least one of establishing and maintaining at least one wireless network in accordance with at least one mesh topology (see, e.g., [0249]-[0252], [0265]-[0266]; note device communication and/or mesh topologies).
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 6 is applicable to the method and medium of claims 15 and 19, respectively.
Regarding claim 7: Badic modified by Wang further teaches wherein performing one or more network-related functions comprises enabling simultaneous audio data communication and non-audio data communication (see, e.g., [0081], [0092], [0129], [0177], [0177]-[0180]; note resource allocation).
Regarding claims 9, 16, and 20: Badic modified by Wang further teaches wherein performing one or more network-related functions comprises at least one of enabling direct and private user device-to-user device communication and enabling group communication amongst the two or more user devices on the at least one wireless network (see, e.g., [0093], [0110], [0127]; note device and/or group communication).
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 9 is applicable to the method and medium of claims 16 and 20, respectively.
Regarding claim 10: Badic modified by Wang further teaches at least one gateway configured to connect the at least one wireless network to at least one additional network (see, e.g., [0070]).
8. Claims 2, 13, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badic, in view of Wang, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2018/0270884 A1 (hereinafter “Fraser”).
Regarding claims 2, 13, and 18: Badic modified by Wang further teaches at least one audio data processing unit configured to output audio data associated with communication directly between at least a portion of the two or more user devices, wherein outputting audio data comprises: implementing at least one time division multiple access (TDMA) slotted medium access control (MAC) in connection with the at least one audio data processing unit (see, e.g., [0171] , [0177]-[0179], [0189], [0253]).
Badic modified by Wang does not explicitly state “implementing at least one voice coder operating in connection with at least one optimum sampling rate.” However, this feature is taught by Fraser (see, e.g., [0041], [ 0051], [0057]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Fraser, such as the coder functionality, within the system of Badic modified by Wang, in order to improve audio resource utilization.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 2 is applicable to the method and medium of claims 13 and 18, respectively.
9. Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badic, in view of Wang, in further view of Fraser, and in further view of either U.S. Publication No. 2022/0292134 A1 (hereinafter “Shahbazi”) or U.S. Publication No. 2013/0171965 A1 (hereinafter “Schrecker”).
Regarding claims 3 and 14: Badic modified by Wang and Fraser substantially teaches the system as set forth above regarding claim 2, but does not explicitly state the feature wherein the at least one audio data processing unit is further configured to authenticate an end-user prior to engaging a corresponding one of the two or more user devices by comparing stored voice data associated with the end-user to speech data input in connection with authenticating the end-user. However, this feature is taught by Shahbazi (see, e.g., [0074] and [0216]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Shahbazi, such as the processing and/or authentication functionality, within the system of Badic modified by Wang and Fraser in order to improve authentication.
Alternatively, the said feature is taught by Schrecker (see, e.g., [0053]-[0054]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Schrecker, such as the processing and/or authentication functionality, within the system of Badic modified by Wang and Fraser in order to improve authentication.
The rationale set forth above regarding the system of claim 3 is applicable to the method of claim 14.
10. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Badic, in view of Wang, and in further view of U.S. Publication No. 2023/0188934 A1 (hereinafter “Chung”).
Regarding claim 8: Badic modified by Wang and Fraser substantially teaches the system as set forth above regarding claim 2, but does not explicitly state the feature wherein performing one or more network-related functions comprises performing mutual authentication of the two or more user devices during formation of the at least one wireless network and performing encryption of at least a portion of communication between the two or more user devices. However, this feature is taught by Chung (see, e.g., [0140], [0189]-[0190]). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate features from the system of Chung, such as the authentication functionality, within the system of Badic modified by Wang, in order to enhance secure communication.
Conclusion
11. 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.
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS SLOMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7520. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/NICHOLAS SLOMS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights