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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the “Connection interval” in Figure 3 is erroneously cover 12 arrows (121 to 1211 and 121). It should only cover 11 arrows to 121 to 1211 (see specification [0031] in page 8). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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.
Claims 1-8, 11 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. (US Pub. 2022/0015191) in view of Terazaki et al. (US Pub. 2017/0161786).
Regarding claims 1 and 18, Yuan teaches a wireless communication device comprising: a communication unit configured to periodically communicate with wireless devices in first periods (see “connection interval” in Figure 2 and Figure 3); and a processor configured to determine whether a first wireless device of the wireless devices is connected to the wireless communication device, and when the processor determines that the first wireless device is not connected to the wireless communication device, the processor is configured to scan (“conducting the scan operation to identify a new wireless connection. The conducting the connection operation within the connection window may further include: adding the new wireless connection. The new wireless connection may be added by: conducting a new link operation corresponding to the new wireless connection at one of the plurality of link positions that is not occupied” in [0009]) in a second period having a length equal to a length of the first periods (see “the scan interval may equal to the connection interval” in [0007] and “the scan interval for consecutive scan windows (“base scan interval” in FIG. 2) may equal to the connection interval for consecutive connection windows (“base connection interval” in FIG. 2)” in [0038]). Yuan, however, does not teach the processor is configured to scan by switching a reception frequency of the communication unit among frequencies in a second period and restart periodic communication with the wireless devices by the communication unit after the communication unit receives an advertising signal transmitted from the first wireless device. Terazaki teaches the processor is configured to scan by switching a reception frequency of the communication unit among frequencies (“When the scan window and scan interval are equal, successive scanning is performed. The BLE specification recommends scanning only one channel in each scan window and changing a scanning channel every scan window” in [0065], see also 37ch, 38ch and 39ch in Figure 4A) in a second period (“scan interval” in [0065]) and restart periodic communication with the wireless devices by the communication unit (see “completes establishment of connection to the second radio communication apparatus 100b (Step S50). From then on, the first radio communication apparatus 100a performs data communication” in [0089] and “completes establishment of connection to the first radio communication apparatus 100a (Step S51). From then on, the second radio communication apparatus 100b performs data communication” in [0090]) after the communication unit receives an advertising signal transmitted from the first wireless device (see Advertise(S41) before COMPLETION(S50) and COMPLETION(S51) in Figure 5). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuan to have the processor is configured to scan by switching a reception frequency of the communication unit among frequencies in a second period and restart periodic communication with the wireless devices by the communication unit after the communication unit receives an advertising signal transmitted from the first wireless device as taught by Terazaki in order to follow BLE specification [0065].
Regarding claim 2, Terazaki teaches a memory configured to store respective identifiers of the wireless devices (“identification information for notifying another radio communication apparatus of its own presence” in [0060]).
Regarding claim 3, Terazaki teaches the processor is configured not to perform communication with the wireless devices other than the first wireless device by the communication unit until the communication unit receives the advertising signal (see “completes establishment of connection to the second radio communication apparatus 100b (Step S50). From then on, the first radio communication apparatus 100a performs data communication” in [0089] and “completes establishment of connection to the first radio communication apparatus 100a (Step S51). From then on, the second radio communication apparatus 100b performs data communication” in [0090], see also Advertise(S41) before COMPLETION(S50) and COMPLETION(S51) in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 4, Terazaki teaches the processor is configured to transmit a connection request signal (“CONNECT_REQ(S49)” in Figure 5) to the first wireless device by the communication unit after receiving the advertising signal (“Advertise(S41)” in Figure 5).
Regarding claim 5, Terazaki teaches the frequencies comprises m frequencies (m=3 in “the advertising channel indices are 37, 38, and 39” in [0061]); and the processor is configured to sets a reception frequency of each of m sub-periods included in the second period to one of the m frequencies (“scans the three advertising channels 37 to 39 in the order of 37, 38, 39, 37, 38, 39, . . . at an equal frequency as shown in FIG. 4A” in [0065]).
Regarding claim 6, Terazaki teaches a time length of each of the sub-periods is one-mth of the second period (“scans the three advertising channels 37 to 39 in the order of 37, 38, 39, 37, 38, 39, . . . at an equal frequency as shown in FIG. 4A” in [0065]) and Yuan teaches a second period having a length equal to a length of the first periods (see “the scan interval may equal to the connection interval” in [0007] and “the scan interval for consecutive scan windows (“base scan interval” in FIG. 2) may equal to the connection interval for consecutive connection windows (“base connection interval” in FIG. 2)” in [0038]). Therefore, Yuan in view of Terazaki teaches a time length of each of the sub-periods is one-mth of the first period.
Regarding claim 7, Terazaki teaches time lengths of the m sub-periods are different from each other (S1 for 38ch is longer than S0 for 37ch in Figure 8, see also [0126]).
Regarding claim 8, Terazaki teaches a time length of each of the sub-periods is one-mth of the second period (“scans the three advertising channels 37 to 39 in the order of 37, 38, 39, 37, 38, 39, . . . at an equal frequency as shown in FIG. 4A” in [0065]) and Yuan teaches a second period having a length equal to a length of the first periods (see “the scan interval may equal to the connection interval” in [0007] and “the scan interval for consecutive scan windows (“base scan interval” in FIG. 2) may equal to the connection interval for consecutive connection windows (“base connection interval” in FIG. 2)” in [0038]). Therefore, Yuan in view of Terazaki teaches a time length of each of the sub-periods is one-mth of the first period. Therefore, Yuan in view of Terazaki teaches a time length of each of the m sub-periods is different from the time length of the first period. The examiner also notes any time length of each of the m sub-periods is either equal or different to/from the time length of the first period.
Regarding claim 11, Terazaki teaches the processor is configured to determine that the first wireless device is not connected to the wireless communication device when a disconnection request signal from the first wireless device is received (see “ORDER TO DISCONNECT(S31) and “TERMINATE_IND(S32)” in Figure 5).
Claims 10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. in view of Terazaki et al. and further in view of Hsiao et al. (US Pub. 2022/0304094).
Regarding claim 10, Yuan in view of Terazaki teaches the limitations in claim 1 as shown above. Yuan in view of Terazaki, however, does not teach the processor is configured to determine that the first wireless device is not connected to the wireless communication device when a response from the first wireless device is not received for a certain period. Hsiao teaches the processor is configured to determine that the first wireless device is not connected to the wireless communication device when a response from the first wireless device is not received for a certain period (“when a Bluetooth connection is disconnected includes: … an error code indicating connection timeout connection timeout is received” in [0010]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuan in view of Terazaki to have the processor is configured to determine that the first wireless device is not connected to the wireless communication device when a response from the first wireless device is not received for a certain period as taught by Hsiao in order to reduce power consumption of the central device [0206].
Regarding claim 12, Hsiao teaches the processor is configured to determine that the first wireless device is not connected to the wireless communication device when an error is detected (“when a Bluetooth connection is disconnected includes: … an error code indicating connection timeout connection timeout is received” in [0010]).
Claims 13, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. in view of Terazaki et al. and further in view of Moloney et al. (US Pub. 2020/0329356).
Regarding claim 13, Yuan in view of Terazaki teaches the limitations in claim 1 as shown above. Yuan in view of Terazaki, however, does not teach the wireless communication device receives data and the advertising signal from the wireless devices. Moloney teaches the wireless communication device receives data and the advertising signal from the wireless devices (“The advertisement may include data for transmission” in [0024], see also “Advertisement (with or without data)” in Figure 1). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuan in view of Terazaki to have the wireless communication device receives data and the advertising signal from the wireless devices as taught by Moloney in order to provide for rapid data transmission [0027].
Regarding claim 16, Moloney teaches a wireless communication system comprising: wireless devices (see multiple “Peripheral Mode” in Figure 8); and the wireless communication device (see “Central Mode” in Figure 8) of claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Terazaki teaches when one of the wireless devices is configured to determine that the one of the wireless devices is not connected to the wireless communication device (see “ORDER TO DISCONNECT(S31) and “TERMINATE_IND(S32)” in Figure 5), the one of the wireless devices is configured to transmit the advertising signal (“Advertise(S41)” in Figure 5) to the wireless communication device by one of the frequencies (“the advertising channel indices are 37, 38, and 39” in [0061]), and the processor is configured to set a frequency of the communication unit to a frequency other than the frequencies after the communication unit receives an advertising signal transmitted from the first wireless device (“The other 37 data communication channels (of which the data channel indices are 0 to 36) are used for data communication after connection between a master and slave is established” in [0061]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. in view of Terazaki et al. and further in view of Baik et al. (US Pub. 2020/0178339).
Regarding claim 14, Yuan in view of Terazaki teaches the limitations in claim 1 as shown above. Yuan in view of Terazaki, however, does not teach the communication unit is configured to transmit information related to the frequencies to the first wireless device. Baik teaches the communication unit is configured to transmit information related to the frequencies to the first wireless device (“The scanning device transmits a scan request to the advertising device via an advertising physical channel” in [0184]). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuan in view of Terazaki to have the communication unit is configured to transmit information related to the frequencies to the first wireless device as taught by Baik in order to transmit responses with respect to the scan requests to the devices which have transmitted the scan requests, through the same advertising physical channels as the advertising physical channels in which the scan requests have been received [0179].
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan et al. in view of Terazaki et al. and further in view of Golsch (US Pub. 2019/0306711).
Regarding claim 15, Yuan in view of Terazaki teaches the limitations in claim 1 as shown above. Yuan, also, teaches when the processor determines that a single wireless device are not connected to the wireless communication device, the processor is configured to scan (“conducting the scan operation to identify a new wireless connection. The conducting the connection operation within the connection window may further include: adding the new wireless connection. The new wireless connection may be added by: conducting a new link operation corresponding to the new wireless connection at one of the plurality of link positions that is not occupied” in [0009]) in a second period having a length equal to a length of the first periods (see “the scan interval may equal to the connection interval” in [0007] and “the scan interval for consecutive scan windows (“base scan interval” in FIG. 2) may equal to the connection interval for consecutive connection windows (“base connection interval” in FIG. 2)” in [0038]) and Terazaki, also teaches the processor is configured to scan by switching the reception frequency of the communication unit among the frequencies (“When the scan window and scan interval are equal, successive scanning is performed. The BLE specification recommends scanning only one channel in each scan window and changing a scanning channel every scan window” in [0065], see also 37ch, 38ch and 39ch in Figure 4A) in the second period (“scan interval” in [0065]), and restart periodic communication with the single wireless devices by the communication unit (see “completes establishment of connection to the second radio communication apparatus 100b (Step S50). From then on, the first radio communication apparatus 100a performs data communication” in [0089] and “completes establishment of connection to the first radio communication apparatus 100a (Step S51). From then on, the second radio communication apparatus 100b performs data communication” in [0090]) after the communication unit receives the advertising signal transmitted from the single wireless device (see Advertise(S41) before COMPLETION(S50) and COMPLETION(S51) in Figure 5). In other word, Yuan in view of Terazaki teaches the single wireless device connected to the wireless communication device. Yuan in view of Terazaki, however, does not teach the multiple wireless devices connected to the wireless communication device. Golsch teaches the multiple wireless devices connected to the wireless communication device (“multiple advertising devices that have established a trust relationship with a single scanner the capability of wirelessly exchanging data between the advertising devices and the scanner” in [0022], see also multiple advertising devices 20a, 20b … 20n and a scanner 30 in Figure 2B). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yuan in view of Terazaki to have the multiple wireless devices connected to the wireless communication device as taught by Golsch in order to provide multiple advertising devices a trust relationship with a scanner [0022].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art in the record (in particular, US Pub. 2017/0161786 to Terazaki et al. (hereinafter “Terazaki”)) does not disclose, with respect to claim 9, a time length of each of the sub-periods is one-(k×m)th of the time length of the first period, where k is an arbitrary positive integer greater than or equal to two as claimed. In a case where m =3 and k =2, the time length of each channel frequencies (CH37, CH 38 and CH39) would be
1
6
of the time length of Connection interval (as shown in Figure 12 in the instant application). Rather, Terazaki teaches the frequencies comprises m frequencies (m=3 in “the advertising channel indices are 37, 38, and 39” in [0061]); and the processor is configured to sets a reception frequency of each of m sub-periods included in the second period to one of the m frequencies (“scans the three advertising channels 37 to 39 in the order of 37, 38, 39, 37, 38, 39, . . . at an equal frequency as shown in FIG. 4A” in [0065]). Terazaki, does not teach the relationship between the time length of the sub-period and the time length of the first period is
1
k
m
.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CLEMENCE S HAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3158. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM 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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/CLEMENCE S HAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414