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 Amendment
This Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendment filed on June 29, 2026. Claims 1-15 and 21-25 are still pending in the present application. This Action is made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-15 and 21-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Lam et al (US Pat. No. 12,477,601) in view of Panchapakesan et al (US Pat. Pub. No. 2019/0238601).
Regarding claim 1, Lam et al discloses an Information Handling System (IHS) (col. 11, [voice interface device, 102 – figure 1]), comprising:
a processor (figure 1, processor 108); and
a memory (figure 1, memory 112) coupled to the processor, the memory having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by the processor, cause the IHS to:
receive pairing information for a wireless shared device; wherein the host device is coupled to one or more wireless shared devices (col. 11 [lines 35-40] voice interface device receiving the pairing request from accessory device, 103);
pair with the wireless shared device on a temporary basis (col. 11 [lines 40-45] establish pairing between voice interface device and accessory device); and
purge the pairing information from the IHS based, at least in part, on an
occurrence of an expiration event (col. 11 [line 57] to col. 12 [line 6] dissociation event detected, removes the pairing information).
Lam et al specifically does not disclose receive pairing information for a first wireless signal from a host device; in response to verifying context information based on the first wireless signal received from the host device, establish wireless pairing with the one or more wireless shared devices using one or more wireless signals other than the first wireless signal; and in response to detecting that the first wireless signal from the host device is not being received, terminate the wireless pairing with the one or more wireless shared devices, wherein the detecting that the first wireless signal from the host device is not being received corresponds to an expiration event.
However, Panchapakesan et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches receive pairing information for a first wireless signal from a host device; in response to verifying context information based on the first wireless signal received from the host device, establish wireless pairing with the one or more wireless shared devices using one or more wireless signals other than the first wireless signal; and in response to detecting that the first wireless signal from the host device is not being received, terminate the wireless pairing with the one or more wireless shared devices, wherein the detecting that the first wireless signal from the host device is not being received corresponds to an expiration event (see at least paragraphs 52 and 74 discloses computing devices remained paired until a termination event occurs; termination event is determined based on signal; the pairing session terminated when keep active signal is not transmitted back).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Panchapakesan et al into the system of Lam et al for purpose of using signal to determine a termination event and to end a pairing session based on termination event.
Regarding claim 2, Panchapakesan et al discloses the expiration event comprises a lapse of a preset duration of time causing termination of the first wireless signal (see at least paragraph 74). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Panchapakesan et al discloses the expiration event comprises a disconnection of a meeting session causing termination of the first wireless signal (see at least paragraph 74). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Lam et al discloses the expiration event comprises a removal of the IHS from a room associated with the host device (col. 21 [lines 10-15]).
Regarding claim 5, Lam et al discloses the temporary basis comprises at least one of the following types: a time-bound basis, a location-bound basis, or a Unified Communication (UC) meeting-bound basis (col. 21 [lines 10-15]).
Regarding claim 6, Lam et al discloses the program instructions, upon execution by the processor, further cause the IHS to: prompt a user for the type of temporary basis for pairing with the wireless shared device; and store the type of temporary basis for the wireless shared device in the memory (col. 22 [lines 60-67]).
Regarding claim 7, Lam et al discloses the program instructions, upon execution by the processor, further cause the IHS to: receive a second set of pairing information for the wireless shared device; retrieve the type of temporary basis for the wireless shared device from the memory, so that the user is not prompted a second time; and pair with the wireless shared device based on the retrieved type of temporary basis (col. 29 [lines 12-25] enterprise system receiving second identifier).
Regarding claim 8, Panchapakesan et al discloses the first wireless signal comprises a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) signal (see at least paragraph 74). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 9, Lam et al discloses wherein the terminating the wireless pairing with the one or more wireless shared devices includes removing information regarding the type of the temporary basis for pairing (col. 4 [lines 60-67]).
Regarding claim 10, Lam et al discloses a hardware memory device (memory 126 – figure 1) having program instructions stored thereon that, upon execution by a processor of a wireless peripheral (accessory device 103 – figure 1), causes the peripheral to:
transmit peripheral pairing information (col. 11 [lines 35-40] voice interface device receiving the pairing request from accessory device, 103);
obtain Information Handling System (IHS) pairing information from an IHS (col. 11 [lines 5-20] accessory device receiving pairing command);
pair with the IHS on a temporary basis based, at least in part, on the IHS pairing information (col. 11 [lines 40-45] establish pairing between voice interface device and accessory device); and
automatically purge the IHS pairing information from the hardware memory based, at least in part, on an occurrence of an expiration event (col. 11 [line 57] to col. 12 [line 6] dissociation event detected, removes the pairing information).
Lam et al specifically does not disclose transmit pairing information over a first wireless signal; obtain pairing information from an IHS using the first wireless signal; cause one or more wireless shared devices that are coupled to the host device to pair with the IHS using one or more wireless signals other than the first wireless signal based, at least in part, on the IHS pairing information; and automatically purge the IHS pairing information based, at least in part, on an occurrence of an expiration event causing connection of the IHS and the host device over the first wireless to be terminated.
However, Panchapakesan et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches transmit pairing information over a first wireless signal; obtain pairing information from an IHS using the first wireless signal; cause one or more wireless shared devices that are coupled to the host device to pair with the IHS using one or more wireless signals other than the first wireless signal based, at least in part, on the IHS pairing information; and automatically purge the IHS pairing information based, at least in part, on an occurrence of an expiration event causing connection of the IHS and the host device over the first wireless to be terminated (see at least paragraphs 52 and 74 discloses computing devices remained paired until a termination event occurs; termination event is determined based on signal; the pairing session terminated when keep active signal is not transmitted back).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Panchapakesan et al into the system of Lam et al for purpose of using signal to determine a termination event and to end a pairing session based on termination event.
Regarding claim 11, Lam et al discloses the expiration event comprises a lapse of a preset duration of time (col. 21 [lines 10-15]).
Regarding claim 12, Lam et al discloses the expiration event comprises a disconnection of a meeting session (col. 21 [lines 10-15]).
Regarding claim 13, Lam et al discloses the expiration event comprises a removal of the IHS from a room associated with the wireless shared device (col. 21 [lines 10-15]).
Regarding claim 14, Panchapakesan et al discloses the first wireless signal comprises a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) signal (see at least paragraph 74). Same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, Lam et al discloses the temporary basis comprises at least one of the following types: a time-bound basis, a location-bound basis, or a Unified Communication (UC) meeting-bound basis (col. 21 [lines 10-15]).
Regarding claim 21, Lam et al discloses a method, comprising:
receiving, at an Information Handling System (IHS), first pairing information for a wireless shared device (col. 11 [lines 35-40] voice interface device receiving the pairing request from accessory device, 103);
pairing the IHS with the wireless shared device on a temporary basis (col. 11 [lines 40-45] establish pairing between voice interface device and accessory device); and
causing the pairing information to be purged from the IHS based, at least in part, on an occurrence of an expiration event (col. 11 [line 57] to col. 12 [line 6] dissociation event detected, removes the pairing information).
Lam et al specifically does not disclose receive pairing information for a first wireless signal from a host device; in response to verifying context information based on the first wireless signal received from the host device, establish wireless pairing with the one or more wireless shared devices using one or more wireless signals other than the first wireless signal; and in response to detecting that the first wireless signal from the host device is not being received, terminate the wireless pairing with the one or more wireless shared devices, wherein the detecting that the first wireless signal from the host device is not being received corresponds to an expiration event.
However, Panchapakesan et al from the same or similar fields of endeavor teaches receive pairing information for a first wireless signal from a host device; in response to verifying context information based on the first wireless signal received from the host device, establish wireless pairing with the one or more wireless shared devices using one or more wireless signals other than the first wireless signal; and in response to detecting that the first wireless signal from the host device is not being received, terminate the wireless pairing with the one or more wireless shared devices, wherein the detecting that the first wireless signal from the host device is not being received corresponds to an expiration event (see at least paragraphs 52 and 74 discloses computing devices remained paired until a termination event occurs; termination event is determined based on signal; the pairing session terminated when keep active signal is not transmitted back).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify to incorporate above mention feature as taught by Panchapakesan et al into the system of Lam et al for purpose of using signal to determine a termination event and to end a pairing session based on termination event.
Regarding claim 22, Lam et al discloses receiving, at the IHS, second pairing
information for the wireless shared device; based on retrieving a type of temporary pairing designation previously collected from a user, pairing the IHS and the wireless shared device without prompting the user for the type of temporary pairing designation (col. 29 [lines 12-25] enterprise system receiving second identifier).
Regarding claim 23, Lam et al discloses the temporary basis comprises a time-bound basis (col. 21 [lines 10-15]).
Regarding claim 24, Lam et al discloses the temporary basis comprises a location-bound basis (col. 21 [lines 10-15]).
Regarding claim 25, Lam et al discloses the temporary basis comprises a Unified Communication (UC) meeting-bound basis (col. 21 [lines 10-15]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on June 29, 2026, with respect to claims 1, 10 and 21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection, necessitated by applicant’s amendment. See the above rejection of claims 1-15 and 21-25 for the relevant citations found in Lam et al and Panchapakesan et al disclosing the limitations.
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 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LITON MIAH whose telephone number is (571)270-3124. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 7:30am -5:00pm.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached on 571-272-7915. 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.
/LITON MIAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights