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 .
Election/Restrictions
The examiner agreed with the Applicant’s argument on 01/07/2026 that the claims 1-15 should be in a single group and the Applicant elected claims 1-15.
A constructive claim restriction is set forth below to overcome the prior improper restriction:
Claims 1-15, first service through a first connection and a second connection.
Claims 16-20, first service through a first wireless network and second service through a second wireless network.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claims 1-3, 5, 10-13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN108462953A cited in IDS filed on 08/28/2018 hereinafter referred as CN in view of Long et al. (US 20230188813 A1).
Regarding claim 1. CN teaches a method for sending data in a near field, comprising: (Abstract); and in a process of establishing the first connection, sending a part of the data of the first service through a second connection established between the first device and the second device (Abtract).
CN does not expressly disclose the link establishment as taught above was in response to a request of a first service.
However, this feature is very well-known in the wireless communication and cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Long (Fig. 2, S200).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Long into CN for initiate a connection establishment.
Regarding claim 2, The modified CN teaches previous claim. The modified CN further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: after establishment of the first connection is completed, sending the data of the first service to the second device through the first connection (Abstract).
Regarding claim 3, The modified CN teaches previous claim. The modified CN further teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising: starting establishment of the second connection based on the request of the first service (Abstract).
Regarding claim 5, The modified CN teaches previous claim. The modified CN further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first connection uses a direct wireless network (Description: Bluetooth)., and the second connection uses a wireless network based on an access point (Fig. 4, S401, Wi-fi).
Regarding claim 10, The modified CN teaches previous claim. The modified does not teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the first service is a projection service, and a screen area of the first device is smaller than a screen area of the second device.
However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Long (Fig. 1 and Par. 57).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Long into CN to make information more visible.
Regarding claim 11, method of claim 11 is performed by the apparatus of method 1. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 12, method of claim 12 is performed by the apparatus of method 2. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 2.
Regarding claim 13, method of claim 13 is performed by the apparatus of method 3. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 3.
Regarding claim 15, method of claim 15 is performed by the apparatus of method 5. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 5.
Claims 4 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN108462953A (08/28/2018) cited in IDS filed on 07/24/2024 hereinafter referred as CN in view of Long et al. (US 20230188813 A1) and in further view of Medapalli (US 20150245409 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the modified CN teaches previous claim. The modified CN further teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the first device communicates with the second device through a multipath (MP) technology, and the first connection and the second connection are sub-connections that belong to a same multipath connection (Abstract: multipoint simultaneous transmission).
CN does not expressly disclose the multipoint simultaneous transmission as taught above is a multipath (MP) technology.
However, this multipoint simultaneous transmission is very well-known in the wireless communication as multipath technology and cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Medapalli (Fig. 3A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Madapalli into the modified CN to improve user experience through higher throughput.
Regarding claim 14, method of claim 14 is performed by the apparatus of method 4. They recite same scope of limitations. Applicant is kindly advised to refer to rejection of claim 4.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN108462953A (08/28/2018) cited in IDS filed on 07/24/2024 hereinafter referred as CN in view of Long et al. (US 20230188813 A1) and in further view of Sheynman (US 20090111378 A1).
Regarding claim 6, the modified CN teaches previous claim.
However, the modified CN does not teach the method according to claim 2, further comprising:
or
sending the data of the third service through a fifth connection, and sending the data of the second service through the fourth connection, wherein the fourth connection and the second connection use a same wireless network, and the fifth connection and the first connection use a same wireless network.
Sheynman teaches the voice call sharing (first service) and any number of alternative applications, e.g images, music, documents, or video (second service, third service, etc.) is similarly shared, follow the same or similar process (Fig. 9 and Par. 65).
Sheynman further share image (first service) over Bluetooth connection (second connection) at S11 and share image (first service) over WiFi connection (first connection) at S12, (Fig. 9 and Table 3); share audio (second service) over Bluetooth connection (fourth connection) at S21 and share audio (second service) over WiFi connection (third connection) at S22 (Fig. 9 and Table 3); and share video (third service) over Wifi connection (fifth connection) at S32 (Fig. 9 and Table 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Sheynman into the modified CN to allow sharing varieties services/applications.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN108462953A (08/28/2018) cited in IDS filed on 07/24/2024 hereinafter referred as CN in view of Long et al. (US 20230188813 A1) and in further view of Sheynman (US 20090111378 A1) and further in further view of Medapalli (US 20150245409 A1).
Regarding claim 7, the modified CN teaches previous claim. The modified CN further teaches the method according to claim 6, (Sheynman, Fig. 9, Table3 and Par. 22, WiFi connection requires more bandwidth than Bluetooth connection).
The modified CN does not specifically disclose “wherein a total bandwidth requirement of the second service and the third service is greater than a bandwidth of the third connection”. However, it is obvious bandwidth of two connections is greater than bandwidth of one connection) when the bandwidth is distributed evenly across the connections (See Medapalli, Par. 62).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Medapalli into the modified CN as it is an intentional design choice on distribute bandwidth evenly.
Regarding claim 8, the modified CN teaches previous claim. The modified CN does not teach the method according to claim 6, further comprising: when a bandwidth requirement of the second service is greater than a bandwidth requirement of the third service, sending the data of the third service through the fourth connection; and when the bandwidth requirement of the second service is less than the bandwidth requirement of the third service, sending the data of the third service through the fifth connection, and sending the data of the second service through the fourth connection.
However, the feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Medapalli. Medapalli teaches assign each connection of the plurality of connections, including three, four, five, or any other number of connections, for example, based on scores for each connection (Fig. 3 and Pars. 70, 72); a score for each connection based on one or more connection parameters (bandwidth or priority), with a highest scoring connection (higher bandwidth or higher priority application) than other interfaces is being considered "preferred" and steer communications of the application to the preferred connection (fourth connection) (Fig. 3 and Pars. 70, 72).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Madapalli into the modified CN to improve user experience through higher throughput.
Regarding claim 9, the modified CN teaches previous claim. The modified CN does not teach the method according to claim 6, further comprising: when a priority of the second service is higher than a priority of the third service, sending the data of the third service through the fourth connection; and when the priority of the second service is lower than the priority of the third service, sending the data of the third service through the fifth connection, and sending the data of the second service through the fourth connection.
However, the feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Medapalli. Medapalli teaches assign each connection of the plurality of connections, including three, four, five, or any other number of connections, for example, based on scores for each connection (Fig. 3 and Pars. 70, 72); a score for each connection based on one or more connection parameters (bandwidth or priority), with a highest scoring connection (higher bandwidth or higher priority application) than other interfaces is being considered "preferred" and steer communications of the application to the preferred connection (Fig. 3 and Pars. 70, 72). Based on that is obvious to assign priority of each application to each connection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the above teaching as taught by Madapalli into the modified CN to improve user experience through higher throughput.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Sharma et al. US 10104704 B2
Michaelis et al. US 20100188967 A1
Amend et al. US 20220279383 A1
Altman US 11873005 B2
She et al. US 20180249313 A1
Kanma US 20220141900 A1) Handover between BT and WiFi
Narayanasamy US 20210251027 A1 (Two devices and server)
Wong et al. US 20190150089 A1
Ye et al. US 20160134466 A1
Zhou et al. US 20190150214 A1 Establish multi-link (Fig. 18)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CINDY HUYEN TRANDAI whose telephone number is (571)270-1914. The examiner can normally be reached 8am -4:30pm.
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, Wesley L. Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/Cindy Trandai/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648 3/6/2026