DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
This action is in response to communications filed on 5/11/2026.
Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 10 & 12 have been examined and are rejected. Claims 1-9 & 17-20 have been examined and are allowed. Claims 11 & 13-16 have been examined and are objected to.
Priority
This application claims priority to foreign application KR10-2022-0126237 filed 10/4/2022.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 & 17-20 are allowable, however the application is not in condition for allowance as Claims 10 & 12 are rejected. Claims 11 & 13-16 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the communications above have been fully considered but are not persuasive. In the communications filed, applicant argues in substance that:
Argument (a) Applicants have amended claim 10 to include "determining whether a specific condition is satisfied in which a response signal will not be transmitted, in response to the received data packet, the specific condition including at least one of determining whether there are data to be transmitted to the external device or determining whether a current sub-event is a last sub-event just before a flush point corresponding to the received data packet," and contend that the cited art does not disclose or suggest at least the features of amended claim 10.
Speight discloses waiting for a timer duration to send a response based on additional data being included in the response, and is silent as to not sending a response. Speight is focused on ensuring a response is sent and any data, and does not contemplate not sending a response, let alone not sending a response based on the presence or absence or data. As such, Speight, alone or together with the other cited art, cannot disclose or suggest claim 10 as amended.
In response to Argument (a), examiner respectfully disagrees.
Claim 10 requires: when a specific condition is satisfied, a response is not transmitted, and further provides that the specific condition is based on whether there are data to be transmitted to the external device. Claim 10 does not prevent a condition from causing a response to be transmitted at a second point in time. Thus, Claim 10 is satisfied when a response is not transmitted based on whether there are data to be transmitted to the external device.
Similarly Speight teaches a delayed ACK feature in which the receiver waits until data arrives so that the ACK can be piggy-backed onto the data that is to be sent to the transmitter, wherein the ACK is not transmitted if no data arrives and the delay timer has not expired [Speight: 0016-19; 0024]. In [0024], Speight specifically recites “the receiver 205 does not transmit an ACK message immediately, and waits until the delay timer has expired, as no data arrives that can be piggy-backed onto the data that is to be sent to the transmitter 210”. Thus contrary to applicant’s assertions, Speight explicitly contemplates not sending a response based on the presence or absence of data.
For at least these reasons, applicant’s arguments are considered not persuasive.
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 of this title, 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 10 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elshafie et al. (US 2024/0014947 A1) in view of Xu (CN 113346982 A) in view of Speight (US 2008/0045263 A1).
With regard to Claim 10, Elshafie teaches:
An operation method of an electronic device that communicates with an external device through short-range wireless communication; (providing wireless communication between a user equipment (UE) and a network entity, wherein the various aspects may be implemented within systems employing Bluetooth [Elshafie: 0007; 0184]);
the method comprising:
receiving a data packet from the external device; (receiving a packet transmission from a network entity [Elshafie: 0007; 0074]);
determining whether a specific condition is satisfied in which a response signal will not be transmitted, in response to the received data packet; and based on the specific condition being satisfied, keeping silent without sending the response signal to the external device; (determining whether to transmit an acknowledgement (ACK) or negative acknowledgement (NACK) feedback transmission to the network entity in response to the transmission based on at least a predetermined condition configured by the network entity, wherein a bit may be used to indicate to the UE that no ACK/NACK feedback is to be sent in response to the received transmission [Elshafie: 0007; 0107]);
However, Elshafie does not teach:
wherein a low energy connected isochronous stream (CIS) is configured to perform the short range wireless communication.
In a similar field of endeavor involving delaying transmission of acknowledgement information, Xu discloses:
wherein a low energy connected isochronous stream (CIS) is configured to perform the short range wireless communication; (utilizing Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) audio to establish a CIS link based on Connected Isochronous Stream [Xu: p. 2 top], wherein the end device may reduce the confirmation interval of the CIS link to zero [Xu: Claim 5]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elshafie in view of Xu in order to utilize a low energy connected isochronous stream (CIS) to perform short range wireless communication in the system of Elshafie.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Elshafie with Xu as doing so would utilize a known technique for delaying acknowledgement responses with additional wireless communication protocols such as BLE providing a connected isochronous stream.
However, Elshafie-Xu does not teach (where underlining indicates the portion of each limitation not taught):
the specific condition including at least one of determining whether there are data to be transmitted to the external device or determining whether a current sub-event is a last sub-event just before a flush point corresponding to the received data packet.
In a similar field of endeavor involving delaying transmission of acknowledgement responses, Speight discloses:
the specific condition including at least one of determining whether there are data to be transmitted to the external device; (a delayed ACK feature in which the receiver waits until data arrives so that the ACK can be piggy-backed onto the data that is to be sent to the transmitter, wherein the ACK is not transmitted if no data arrives and the delay timer has not expired [Speight: 0016-19; 0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Elshafie-Xu in view of Speight in order to keep silent without sending the response signal when there are no data to be transmitted to the external device in the system of Elshafie-Xu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine Elshafie-Xu with Speight as doing so would allow acknowledgment responses to be transmitted under certain conditions without reducing communication efficiency by piggybacking the acknowledgment responses onto data in instances in which there is data to be transmitted.
With regard to Claim 12, Elshafie-Xu-Speight teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein the specific condition includes a case where the received data packet is invalid and there are no data to be transmitted to the external device, based on the specific condition being satisfied, the keeping silent without sending the response signal to the external device includes not sending a NACK signal being a negative response signal; (utilizing any suitable integrity checking mechanism, such as a checksum or a cyclic redundancy check (CRC), wherein if integrity of the transmission is not confirmed a NACK may typically be transmitted [Elshafie: 0074], wherein a bit may be used to indicate to the UE that no ACK/NACK feedback is to be sent in response to the received transmission [Elshafie: 0107]. Spreight teaches a delayed ACK feature in which the receiver waits until data arrives so that the ACK can be piggy-backed onto the data that is to be sent to the transmitter, wherein the ACK is not transmitted if no data arrives and the delay timer has not expired [Speight: 0016-19; 0024]).
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated any new grounds 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 extension fee 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.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Chen (US 10,959,128 B2) which teaches a flush scheme for flushing packets in a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) connected isochronous stream (CIS).
In the case of amendments, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and support, for ascertaining the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN J MOREAU whose telephone number is (571) 272-5179. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 - 6:00 ET.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952. 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.
/AUSTIN J MOREAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights