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
This office action has been changed in response to the amendment filed on 12/19/2025.
Claims 1, 5, 8 and 15 have been amended. Claim 6 has been canceled. Claim 21 has been newly added.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-5 and 7-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Prajapati et al. (US-2013/0155931 hereinafter, Prajapati) in view of Reunamaki et al (US-2012/0238205 hereinafter, Reunamaki).
Regarding claim 1, Prajapati teaches a method performed by a first computing device (Fig. 1 [100] and Page 2 [0028]), the method comprising:
determining, by the first computing device (Fig. 16 [100] and Fig. 28 [100]) comprising a processor (Fig. 28 [2803]), that an operation of the first core (Fig. 28 [103 & 109] and Fig. 16 [103 & 109]) of the first computing device (Fig. 16 [100]) during a first duration (Fig. 19A [1912]) occurs when a paging message scan (Fig. 19A [1909] with X through it) by a second core (Fig. 16 [103 & 112] and Fig. 28 [103 & 112]) of the first computing device (Fig. 16 [100]) scheduled during a second duration; (Page 9 [0074 & 0077] “As illustrated in FIG. 19A, the even slot may not be available for BT RX 1909 during the S1 transaction window or odd slots may not be available for BT TX 1906 during the S2 and S3 transaction windows” and “the page message at predicted frequency f(k) should be shifted such that it is transmitted, and the page response is received, without interference by an LTE transmission”)
determining, by the first computing device, the operation of the first core (Fig. 28 [103 & 109] and Fig. 16 [103 & 109]) prevents transmission of a paging message response for establishing a connection with a second computing device via a short range transmission protocol; (Page 9 [0074 & 0077] and Bluetooth)
determining, by the first computing device, a third duration for the paging message scan such that the operation of the first core (Fig. 28 [103 & 109] and Fig. 16 [103 & 109]) does not prevent the transmission of the paging message response; (Pages 8-9 [0072-0073], Figs. 18A/B, Fig. 23 and Pages 10-11 [0083-0084]) and
causing, by the first computing device, the second core (Fig. 16 [103 & 112] and Fig. 28 [103 & 112]) to scan for a paging message during the third duration. (Page 9 [0077] “To avoid this situation, the page message at predicted frequency f(k) should be shifted such that it is transmitted, and the page response is received, without interference by an LTE transmission.”)
Prajapati discloses that the first computing device (Fig. 28 [100]) may include multiple processors (Fig. 28 [2803] and Page 14 [0107] “the processor 2803 may represent multiple processors 2803 and the memory 2806 may represent multiple memories 2806 that operate in parallel processing circuits, respectively”), but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting that the first computing device comprising a processor with at least two cores, wherein the first core and the second core are processors of the processor with the at least two cores.
In an analogous art, Reunamaki teaches a method and apparatus for out-of-band short range communication for a computing device (Fig. 1B [100A]) in order to optimize the synchronization of a paging process (Page 5 [0086]) via two RF different interfaces (Fig. 1A [12 & 18]), wherein the first computing device comprises a processor (Fig. 1B [20]) with at least two cores (Fig. 1B [CPU_1 & CPU_2] and Page 9 [0151] “The wireless device 100B of FIG. 1A includes a processor 20, which includes a dual core central processing unit (CPU.sub.--1 and CPU.sub.--2)”) and wherein the first core and the second core are processors of the processor with the at least two core. (Page 9 [0151])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Prajapati after modifying it to incorporate the ability to have a processor with at least two cores of Reunamaki since it enables integrating the NFC circuit module (Reunamaki Fig. 1D [50]) and Bluetooth MAC (Fig. 1D [18A]) as part of the processor integrated circuit (Reunamaki Page 11 [0172]) thereby reducing manufacturing costs while saving space within the computing device.
Regarding claim 2, Prajapati in view of Reunamaki teaches determining the third duration for the paging message scan comprises:
determining a first starting time and a first ending time of the first duration; (Prajapati Page 9 [0074])
determining that a second starting time of the second duration occurs during the first duration based at least in part on the first starting time and first ending time of the first duration; (Prajapati Page 9 [0074] i.e. Bluetooth transmission/reception slot overlaps with LTE transmission/reception slot, seen visually in Fig. 18A [1818 & 1815] and Fig. 19A [1909 & 1906] covered with X compared to LTE subframes Fig. 19A [1912 & 1915]) and
determining a third starting time of the third duration to occur after the first ending time of the first duration. (Prajapati Fig. 19B [1921] and Page 9 [0075] “As shown in FIG. 19B, the RX portion 1909 may be shifted 1921 to a slot that occurs during the LTE-RX subframe periods 1915 and/or an LTE-Free subframe period. In this way, conflicts between the BT communications and the LTE cellular communications can be avoided.”)
Regarding claim 3, Prajapati in view of Reunamaki teaches determining the third duration for the paging message scan comprises:
determining a first starting time and a first ending time of the first duration; (Prajapati Page 9 [0074])
determining that a second starting time of the second duration occurs during the first duration based at least in part on the first starting time and first ending time of the first duration; (Prajapati Page 9 [0074] i.e. Bluetooth transmission/reception slot overlaps with LTE transmission/reception slot, seen visually in Fig. 18A [1818 & 1815] and Fig. 19A [1909 & 1906] covered with X compared to LTE subframes Fig. 19A [1912 & 1915]) and
determining a first ending time of the third duration (Prajapati Fig. 18B [1803] in period S2) to occur before the first starting time of the first duration. (Prajapati Fig. 18B [1812] and Page 9 [0073])
Regarding claim 4, Prajapati in view of Reunamaki teaches determining the third duration for the paging message scan comprises:
determining a first ending time of the first duration; (Prajapati Fig. 18A [1812] and Pages 8-9 [0072])
determining a first starting time of a fourth duration associated with the operation of the first core; (Prajapati Fig. 18A [1815] and Pages 8-9 [0072])
determining a second starting time of the third duration (Prajapati Fig. 18B [S2 & 1818]) to occur after the first ending time of the first duration; (Prajapati Fig. 18B [1812]) and
determining a second ending time of the third duration (Prajapati Fig. 18B [1818]) to occur before the starting time of the fourth duration. (Prajapati Fig. 18B [1815] and Pages 8-9 [0072-0073])
Regarding claim 5, Prajapati in view of Reunamaki teaches wherein the method further comprises:
determining a length of time between the ending time of the first duration and the starting time of the fourth duration; (Prajapati Figs. 18A/B and Pages 8-9 [0072-0073] “In the second TeSCO interval 1809, a conflict occurs between the LTE-TX 1812 and the BT RX-TX transaction in the S1 transaction window and between the LTE-RX 1815 and the BT RX-TX transaction 1818 in the S2 and S3 transaction windows”)
comparing the length of time to a threshold length of time; (Prajapati Page 9 [0073] “By shifting the TeSCO intervals to lead the LTE frame start by 1 ms; the BT RX-TX transaction 1803 can be scheduled in S2 window of the first TeSCO interval 1806 and the BT RX-TX transaction 1818 can be scheduled in S2 window of the second TeSCO interval 180” i.e. S2 window)
determining whether to initiate determination of the third duration based at least in part on the comparing the length of time to a threshold length of time; (Prajapati Pages 8-9 [0072-0073] and Page 11 [0087]) and
determining a type of the operation (Prajapati Page 10 [0079] and Page 11 [0087] “Since the BT synchronous connection renders steady state traffic, there is a dependency on the LTE TDD steady state access pattern based at least in part upon the LTE configuration (see, e.g., TABLE 1)”), wherein the starting time of the fourth duration is determined based at least in part on the type of the operation. (Prajapati Page 10 [Table 1] i.e. the pattern of uplink/downlink changes whether a Bluetooth reception/transmission time slot needs to be shifted based on what is overlapping)
Regarding claim 7, Prajapati in view of Reunamaki teaches wherein determining the operation of the first core prevents transmission of a paging message comprises:
determining that the first core is engaging in a transmission operation. (Prajapati Fig. 3 [306] and Fig. 19A [1912])
Regarding claim 8, the limitations of claim 8 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claim 1. (see additional structure “one or more processors” Prajapati Fig. 28 [2803], “one or more non-transitory, computer-readable media including a sequence of instructions” Fig. 28 [2806] and Page 13 [0103] through Page 14 [0109] and “first core” and “second core” Page 13 [0101] “processing circuitry” of the Bluetooth and LTE communication interfaces)
Regarding claims 9-14, the limitations of claims 9-14 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 2-7.
Regarding claims 15-20, the limitations of claims 15-20 are rejected as being the same reasons set forth above in claims 1-6. (see Prajapati Page 14 [0111] “non-transitory computer-readable medium”)
Regarding claim 21, Prajapati in view of Reunamaki teaches wherein the paging message scan by the second core is a low energy paging message scan (Prajapati Page 8 [0069] “BT low energy (BTLE)” note: WLAN is lower power than cellular and BT/BTLE is lower power than WLAN), and wherein the second core is a low power core of the first computing device. (Fig. 16 [103 & 112] and Fig. 28 [103 & 112])
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 MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights