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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
1. Claims 7, 13 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 7, 13 and 20 recites that the proximate device both transmits the first data set and does not transmit the entirety of the first data set, which are conflicting concepts, as if the first data set is transmitted, it can subsequently also not be fully transmitted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
2. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Colavito (2018/0205249).
As to claims 1, 8 and 14: Colavito teaches a device for improving proximate device battery management, the device comprising:
one or more processors (figure 5, 78); and
one or more memories (74) storing instructions thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, are configured to cause the device to:
receive a signal from a proximate device (72) when the proximate device satisfies a distance threshold, the signal including a dataset corresponding to the proximate device, and the proximate device having a primary connection to a primary device (primary connection being the device connected directly to the charging base, paragraph 0033, 16 connected to 12),
analyze the dataset to determine whether a battery management threshold of the proximate device is violated (paragraph 0052, wherein the dataset contains information about the current battery charge, and determining whether the power threshold is reached or not), and
in response to determining that the battery management threshold is violated, establish a secondary connection to the proximate device (paragraph 0051 explaining that a secondary connection to the cradle is a wireless connection 12, wherein paragraph 0052 explains that the threshold is reached, “for example 5 seconds”, and when it is detected that this is the case and the device is out of the charging cradle, the wireless electronic device communicates instead of the physical connection).
As to claims 2, 9 and 15: Colavito teaches that the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the device to:
transmit a control instruction to the proximate device across the secondary connection to generate an alert at the proximate device associated with violating the battery management threshold (paragraph 0056, an alert is sounded when a power threshold is under a level and a time threshold is reached and the device is additionally not connected to the cradle).
As to claims 3, 10 and 16: Colavito teaches that the battery management threshold includes one or more of: (i) a remaining battery charge threshold of the proximate device, (ii) a charging time threshold of the proximate device, and (iii) a charging placement threshold of the proximate device (paragraphs 0052, 0056 teach all three).
As to claims 4, 11 and 17: Colavito teaches that the secondary connection comprises an instant direct connection to the proximate device via a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) protocol (paragraph 0031).
As to claims 5, 12 and 18: Colavito teaches that the instructions, when executed by the one or more processors, further cause the device to:
determine that a time threshold has been exceeded;
receive a plurality of signals from a plurality of proximate devices when each respective proximate device satisfies the distance threshold, each respective signal of the plurality of signals including a respective dataset corresponding to the respective proximate device;
analyze each respective dataset to determine a set of proximate devices from the plurality of
proximate devices that violate the battery management threshold;
substantially simultaneously establish a respective secondary connection to each proximate device of the set of proximate devices; and
transmit a control instruction to each proximate device of the set of proximate devices across the respective secondary connections to generate an alert at each proximate device of the set of proximate devices (taught is the teachings of claim 1, and in view of In re Harza, since a duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless it results in a new expected outcome, examiner does not find this limitation to produce a new, unexpected or non-obvious result merely due to duplication of handheld devices, referenced in MPEP 2144.04, In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378).
As to claims 6 and 19: Colavito teaches that the signal is a BLE signal transmitted by the proximate device as a periodic beacon (Bluetooth communication taught in paragraph 0031, periodic polling taught in paragraph 0063).
As to claims 7, 13 and 20: Colavito teaches that the proximate device is configured to transmit a first dataset across the primary connection to the primary device, and at least a portion of the first dataset is not included in the signal transmitted from the proximate device (paragraph 0052).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID P TARDIF whose telephone number is (571)270-7810. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 11AM-7:30PM. If the examiner cannot be reached by telephone, he can be reached through the following email address: david.tardif@uspto.gov
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone and email are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Thomas Pham can be reached on (571)272-3689. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
DAVID TARDIF
Examiner
Art Unit 2876
/DAVID TARDIF/
Examiner, Art Unit 2876
david.tardif@uspto.gov
/THOMAS K PHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2876
Prosecution Insights