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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This office action has been changed in response to the amendment filed on 8/3/2026.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 11-15 and 18-21 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/3/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that “The cellular network interface and the Bluetooth interface of Prajapati do not teach or suggest the claimed first core and second core of a processor of a first computing device, which would be clear to one of skill in the art in light of the Applicant’s specification” (Page 11), the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s specification states “The main core 106 can have both reception and transmission capabilities. If a scan core 108 has only reception capability, it might need MC's assistance when operations involve transmission. If the scan core 108 has both reception and transmission capabilities, the transmission capability might be suppressed by activities of the main core 106.” [0020] and “Busy can refer to a state of the main core 106, in which the main core's radio resources are being used (e.g., for a synchronous connection oriented (SCO) link, extended SCO (eSCO) link, Bluetooth (BT) link, low energy (LE) BT link, asynchronous connection less (ACL) link, LE ACL link, LE advertisement, thread scan, etc.), which prevents the scan core 108 from continuing the page scan process after it detects the paging message.” [0028] The Examiner view’s is that the Applicant’s specification supports the Examiner’s mapping of Prajapati to the claims, specifically that the functionality being described is performed by the frontend of a Bluetooth (or RF) transmitter/receiver.
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 a 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]) overlaps in time with a paging message scan (Fig. 19A [1909] i.e. 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]) that is 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, that the operation of the first core (Fig. 28 [103 & 109] and Fig. 16 [103 & 109]) during the first duration (Fig. 19A [1912]) prevents transmission of a paging message response for establishing a connection with a second computing device via a short range transmission protocol; (Fig. 19A and 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”)
determining, by the first computing device, timing and frequency information corresponding to the paging message scan; (Page 9 [0077] “For example, when the communication device 100 is operating as a BT master it is possible that the slot used to transmit the page message at the predicted frequency at which the slave is listening occurs during an LTE-TX subframe period”)
determining, by the first computing device based on the determined timing and frequency information, a third duration for the paging message scan (Page 9 [0077] “By comparing the schedule TX and RX pattern to a period of pattern periodicity with the BT slots, the communication interface 103 can identify a pattern of consecutive BT TX slot, BT RX slot, and BT TX slot that avoids an LTE-TX period or falls within an allowed BT RX period”), 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, Pages 10-11 [0083-0084] and Page 7 [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. The communication interface 103 (FIG. 16) finds a slot pattern for transmitting the page message at the predicted frequency f(k) and receiving the page response based at least in part upon the LTE transmit and receive pattern of the LTE communication schedule. By comparing the schedule TX and RX pattern to a period of pattern periodicity with the BT slots, the communication interface 103 can identify a pattern of consecutive BT TX slot, BT RX slot, and BT TX slot that avoids an LTE-TX period or falls within an allowed BT RX period”) 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 processor 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 processor core; (Prajapati Fig. 18A [1815] and Pages 8-9 [0072] and Reunamaki Fig. 1B [CPU_1 & CPU_2] and Page 9 [0151])
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 first 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 first ending time of the first duration and the first 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 first 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 processor core prevents transmission of a paging message comprises:
determining that the first processor 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 processor 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 processor core is a low power core of the first computing device. (Prajapati Fig. 16 [103 & 112] and Fig. 28 [103 & 112] and Reunamaki Page 1 [0004])
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US-8,909,165 to Hendin which discloses the ability to operate multiple co-located radio modules on a shared antenna.
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