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 .
Claims 1-18 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1-6, 14-16, and 18 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.
With respect to claims 1, 14, and 18 the limitations “win response to the second electronic device granting” in claim 1, “win response to receiving a first invoking instruction sent …electronic device” in claim 14, and “win response to the third electronic device” in claim 18 are grammatically incoherent. Does it mean the third electronic device is in competition with the first electronic device to receive communication from the second electronic device? What is being “grant[ed]”? And there is no antecedent basis for “the granting” element of the limitation. Due to the limitation being insolubly ambiguous, the examiner is ignoring the limitation for examination purposes at this point in prosecution.
With respect to claims 2-6, and 15-16, they are rejected under 35 USC § 112(b) by virtue of inheriting their respective parent/base claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 7, 8, 11, 13, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stelzer et al. (US 2004/0192443) in view of Joo et al. (US 2018/0205770).
With respect to claim 1, Stelzer discloses: establishing, by a first electronic device, a first-level communication relationship with a second electronic device, wherein the first-level communication relationship is used to indicate to the first electronic device to provide a preset capability for the second electronic device ([0010], lines 1-19, the communication link that couples the second amusement device to the first amusement device corresponds to “first-level communication”, the first amusement device corresponds to “first electronic device”, the second amusement device corresponds to “second electronic device”);
establishment of a second-level communication relationship with the second electronic device to the third electronic device, establishing, by the third electronic device, the second-level communication relationship with the second electronic device, wherein the second-level communication relationship is used to indicate to the third electronic device to use the preset capability by using the second electronic device ([0010], lines 1-19, the communication link that couples the third amusement device to the second amusement device corresponds to “second-level communication”. The third amusement device corresponds to “third electronic device”).
Stelzer does not specifically disclose: sending, by a third electronic device, a second-level communication relationship establishment request to the second electronic device, wherein the second-level communication relationship establishment request is used by the third electronic device to obtain, from the second electronic device, authorization to use the preset capability by using the second electronic device; and
win response to the second electronic device granting, based on the second-level communication relationship establishment request.
However, Joo discloses: sending, by a third electronic device, a second-level communication relationship establishment request to the second electronic device, wherein the second-level communication relationship establishment request is used by the third electronic device to obtain, from the second electronic device, authorization to use the preset capability by using the second electronic device; and win response to the second electronic device granting, based on the second-level communication relationship establishment request (Abstract, [0026]-[0030], several devices collaborate after authentication and understanding what each other’s capabilities are to fulfill a task).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the teachings of Joo to provide autonomous collaboration between devices and increase security through authentication protocols thereby improving overall security and efficiency of Stelzer’s collaboration system.
With respect to claim 2, Stelzer discloses: in response to the third electronic device sending a first invoking instruction to the second electronic device, and the second electronic device sending a second invoking instruction to the first electronic device based on the first invoking instruction, providing, by the first electronic device, the preset capability for the second electronic device based on the second invoking instruction; and providing, by the second electronic device, the preset capability for the third electronic device based on the first invoking instruction ([0010], communication is maintained via the communication medium).
With respect to claim 5, Stelzer discloses: wherein the preset capability comprises one or more of a photographing capability, an audio play capability ([0010], “audio output”), or an audio collection capability.
With respect to claims 7 and 13, they recite similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
With respect to claims 8 and 11, they recite similar limitations as claims 2 and 5 and are therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
With respect to claims 14 and 17, they recite similar limitations as claims 2 and 5 and are therefore rejected under the same citations and rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9, 10, 12, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
No prior art has been found for claims 3, 4, 6, 15, 16, and 18. However, the latter claims are subject to the 35 USC 112(b) rejection disclosed in this Office Action.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art, for example, Stelzer and Joo discloses establishing communications within several devices and utilizing capabilities of at least one of the devices by the other devices (see e.g. paragraph [0010] of Stelzer and paragraph [0026]-[0030] of Joo). The prior art alone or in combination does not disclose specific device capabilities being sent in the order that is mentioned for example in claim 3: where first data is sent from the first device to the second device and then the second device sends the first data received from the second device to the third device. While prior art may be out there that describes such a data transfer scheme, modifying the cited prior art with such a reference would constitute impermissible hindsight as no motivation to combine the references would be found.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WISSAM RASHID whose telephone number is (571)270-3758. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am-5:00 pm.
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, Aimee Li can be reached at (571)272-4169. 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.
/WISSAM RASHID/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2195