DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to Application 18/259943 filed on 8/16/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statements (IDS)s comply with 37 CFR 1.97 provisions. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claims 1-13 and 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2017219657 hereinafter Shao (IDS filed 9/6/2024, entry 1 under FOR (attached)) in view of CN 106612445 hereinafter Liu (IDS filed 12/18/2024, entry 1 under FOR (attached)).
Claims 1, 8 and 15:
Regarding Claim 1, Shao teaches a method implemented by a first electronic device, wherein the method comprises:
obtaining a media access control (MAC) address of a Wi-Fi interface of a second electronic device in a near-field communication (NFC) tag of the second electronic device (summary of invention; extract network connection information from NFC tag information that includes a MAC address of a second device);
querying, using the MAC address, whether the second electronic device has a Wi-Fi parameter negotiation capability (Fig. 1-Step 103 and related paragraphs; Specifically, the connection initiating device may extract the network connection information in a Payload location of the NFC tag information of the read NDEF data format, after reading the WiFi MAC address information of the target connection device and the communication channel information, And sending, according to the MAC address information, connection request information to the MAC address in the communication channel information; the connection request information may be: a probe request frame (Probe Request) frame;
After the connection initiating device sends the connection request information, the WiFi Direct connection may be established by using the current WiFi Direct process. The method includes: after receiving the Probe Request request frame, the target connection device responds to the Probe Response frame; the connection initiator receives the After the Probe Response frame, the group owner negotiation request (GO Negotiation Request) frame is sent; after the target connection device receives the GO Negotiation Request frame, the response group owner negotiates the response. (GO Negotiation Response) frames, etc.; until the connection succeeds or fails);
Shao does not expressly teach “performing, when the second electronic device has the Wi-Fi parameter negotiation capability, Wi-Fi parameter negotiation with the second electronic device to obtain a target radio frequency parameter” & “and establishing a Wi-Fi Direct channel with the second electronic device using the target radio frequency parameter.”
Liu teaches performing, when the second electronic device has the Wi-Fi parameter negotiation capability, Wi-Fi parameter negotiation with the second electronic device to obtain a target radio frequency parameter (Contents of the invention; third paragraph; After the sending device establishes a connection with the receiving device, it sends a service capability negotiation message to the receiving device, and the service capability negotiation message carries a WIFI direct connection two-way audio capability parameter);
and establishing a Wi-Fi Direct channel with the second electronic device using the target radio frequency parameter (abstract; the receiving device sets the response message according to the parameter setting message fed back by the receiving device, so as to complete the communication with the receiving device Negotiation of two-way audio service capabilities).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Liu into the system of Shao in order to complete the communication with the receiving device negotiation of two-way audio service capabilities (abstract).
Claims 2-7, 9-13 and 16-21 are rejected for depending on the rejected claims 1, 8 and 15.
Claims NOT Rejected Over the Prior Art
8. Prior art rejections have not been provided for claims 2-7, 9-13 and 16-21 as the claims include a combination of subject matter not disclosed by the prior art of record. However, these claims stand rejected at least over 35 U.S.C. 103, see above, which must be overcome before the claims can be designated as allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-5PM.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455
Prosecution Insights