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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 17-18 and 25-26 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments are directed to newly added limitations which haven’t been rejected in the previous action, please refer to new ground of rejection for details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4.Claims 17-18 and 25-26 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 written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Regarding claim 17, reciting “the first-type data packet instructs the apparatus to enable a second scan window for receiving the second-type data packet…”, it appears that the same apparatus transmits and receives the same second-type data packet, which is not described in the specification, according to the specification the Bluetooth connection to be established between two separate devices.
Claims 18 and 25-26 are rejected for depend from claim 17.
5. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
6. Claims 17-18 and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 17, reciting “the first-type data packet instructs the apparatus to enable a second scan window for receiving the second-type data packet…”, it appears that the same apparatus transmits and receives the same second-type data packet, according to the specification the Bluetooth connection to be established between two separate devices, it’s unclear of the correlation of “the apparatus” to the two separate devices, based on the brief claim language.
Claims 18 and 25-26 are rejected for depend from claim 17.
Allowable Subject Matter
7. Claims 1-5, 7, 9-13, 15 and 21-24 are allowed.
8. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Consider claims 1 and 9, Applicant’s claimed invention distinguished over the prior art for the following reasons. The claims are allowable over the prior art of record because none of the references, either alone or in combination, discloses or renders obvious the invention as a whole.
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 response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300, submitted online via the USPTO's Electronic Filing System-Web (EFS-Web) (Registered eFilers only, Registered users of the USPTO's EFS-Web system may submit a response electronically through EFS-Web at https://efs.uspto.gov/TruePassSample/AuthenticateUserLocalEPF.html), or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Rui Meng Hu whose telephone number is 571-270-1105, email is ruimeng.hu@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 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, Jinsong Hu can be reached on (571)272-3965. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/Rui Meng Hu/
R.H./rh
August 7, 2026
/JINSONG HU/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights