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 .
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed May 29, 2026. Claims 1, 10, and 16 have been amended; no claims have been added or cancelled. Claims 1-20 are pending and are examined herein. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 29, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims 1-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues on page 6 of remarks that Holmes does not disclose the amended limitation “wherein the identifying of the second wireless connection is based on wireless routing parameters and designated wireless device associations between additional wireless devices communicatively coupled to the wireless device.” The argument is not persuasive because it attacks Holmes individually, whereas the rejection is based on the combination of Holmes and Dinur; Holmes is not relied upon for the amended limitation, which is mapped to Dinur as set forth below. One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejection is based on a combination of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1986); MPEP 2145(IV).
Applicant next argues on page 7 of remarks that Dinur's binding information and logical IDs do not disclose wireless routing parameters and designated wireless device associations, and are not used to identify wireless connections.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, Dinur's wireless device mapping is a table that “maps the wireless logical ID of each wireless device to its radio ID, SAS and address translation sub-table entries” (Dinur, col. 10, lines 48-51), the radio IDs and endpoints by which each wireless device is reached are wireless routing parameters. Dinur's binding information “contains pairs of devices as identified by the networks scheme” (Dinur, col. 3, lines 55-58), for example designating which switch controls which lamp ballast, and the paired devices include wireless devices (Dinur, Table 2), i.e., designated wireless device associations. Dinur's master controller reads the binding information and uses the address translation sub-table in the wireless device mapping to translate the logical IDs of the devices found in the received binding information into the radio IDs and endpoints of the destination devices (Dinur, col. 23, lines 48-52), identifying, from received input, the wireless connection over which the destination device is reached, based on the stored routing parameters and designated associations. The claims do not preclude the routing parameters and device associations from having been established by prior configuration; the recited identifying is performed when input is received and processed, exactly as in Dinur's translation of received binding information into radio IDs and endpoints.
Furthermore, Applicant argues that the HM datasheet does not cure the alleged deficiencies of Holmes and Dinur. As set forth above, no deficiency remains to be cured with respect to the amended limitation. HM is relied upon only for the protocol-specific features of claims 6, 9, 14, 15, 19, and 20 (the protocol-identifying SPP/BLE addresses and the Bluetooth/Bluetooth Low Energy protocol selection), and the rationale for the combination is set forth in the grounds of rejection below.
With respect to independent claims 10 and 16, Applicant argues that they recite features similar to claim 1 and are patentable for the same reasons. Because the arguments advanced for claim 1 are not persuasive as set forth above, this argument is likewise not persuasive; claims 10 and 16 recite limitations analogous to claim 1, differing only in that they are directed to a system and a device, respectively, and stand rejected for the same reasons as claim 1. With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant relies solely on their dependency from claims 1, 10, and 16 and does not separately argue their additional limitations; the dependent claims therefore fall with their respective independent claims.
For at least these reasons, the rejections are maintained and are restated below to address the amended claim language.
Claim Interpretation
With respect to the claim limitation of “using a dual-mode controller of the wireless device, an output based, at least in part” in the claim 1 and the term “dual-mode controller” (claims 1-20) has been considered under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The claims do not use generic placeholder such as the word “means or step for performing a specified function” and the claim language “one or more processors configured to implement a dual-mode controller” (claims 10 and 16) recites sufficient structure, one or more processors to perform the recited receive, identify, generate, decode, and encode functions.
Accordingly, the presumption against invoking 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not rebutted, and under the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification the term is construed as processor-implemented control logic. 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is not invoked.
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 1-5, 7, 8, 10-13, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (US 9,992,818) in view of Dinur (US 8,437,276).
Regarding claim 1, Holmes discloses: A method comprising: receiving an input via a first wireless connection at a wireless device, the input comprising a first data packet compatible with a first wireless protocol, because Holmes teaches a first antenna of the translation device receives a first-in signal conforming to the first wireless protocol from a first apparatus over a first wireless connection and passes it to the translator circuit: (Holmes, col. 3, lines 31-35 “the communication interface 158 of the first apparatus 150 generates a first-in signal 121 which the first antenna 122 receives and passes to the translator circuit 130. The first-in signal 121 conforms to the first wireless protocol.”).
Furthermore, Holmes discloses: generating, using a dual-mode controller of the wireless device, an output based, at least in part, on the received input and the second wireless protocol, the output comprising a second data packet compatible with the second wireless protocol, because Holmes teaches the translator circuit, whose main component is a Programmable Radio-on-Chip incorporating an ARM-core processor and communicating on both wireless protocols, receives the first-in signal and translates it into a second-out signal conforming to the second wireless protocol: (Holmes, col. 3, lines 35-40 “The translator circuit 130 receives the first-in signal 121 and translates the first-in signal 121 to a second-out signal 123 which the second antenna 124 receives and passes to the second apparatus 170. The second-out signal 123 conforms to the second wireless protocol.”; Holmes, col. 4, lines 66-67 “the main component of the translator circuit 130 is a Programmable”; Holmes, col. 5, lines 1-4 “Radio-on-Chip with Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE), such as the CYBL10X6X manufactured by Cypress Semiconductor of San Jose, Calif., USA, which incorporates an ARM-core processor.”).
Moreover, Holmes discloses: transmitting the output via the second wireless connection using the second wireless protocol, because Holmes teaches the second antenna receives the second-out signal from the translator circuit and passes it to the second apparatus, the second-out signal conforming to the second wireless protocol: (Holmes, col. 3, lines 37-40 “a second-out signal 123 which the second antenna 124 receives and passes to the second apparatus 170. The second-out signal 123 conforms to the second wireless protocol.”).
With respect to claim 1, although Holmes teaches a protocol translation device that receives a first-in signal conforming to a first wireless protocol over a first antenna, translates it with a processor-implemented translator circuit, and transmits a second-out signal conforming to a second wireless protocol over a second antenna: (Holmes, col. 3, lines 3-8, col. 3, lines 31-40), Holmes does not explicitly disclose identifying the second wireless connection based on wireless routing parameters and designated wireless device associations between additional wireless devices communicatively coupled to the wireless device.
However, Holmes in view of Dinur discloses identifying a second wireless connection compatible with a second wireless protocol based on the received input because Dinur teaches a master controller that reads received binding information and uses the wireless device mapping and its address translation sub-table to translate the logical IDs found in that binding information into the radio IDs and endpoints of the destination devices, thereby identifying the outbound wireless connection based on the received input (Dinur, col. 23, lines 48-52, “reading the binding information by the master controller (103), and using the address translation sub-table in the wireless device mapping in order to translate the wired logical IDs of the devices found in the binding information to radio IDs and endpoints 1602”).
Furthermore, Dinur discloses wherein the identifying of the second wireless connection is based on wireless routing parameters and designated wireless device associations between additional wireless devices communicatively coupled to the wireless device because Dinur teaches the wireless device mapping records, for each wireless device, the radio ID, startup attribute set, and address translation sub-table entries by which it is reached, wireless routing parameters, and the binding information designates pairs of associated devices among the devices coupled to the network (Dinur, col. 10, lines 48-51, “The term “wireless device mapping and the like substantially refer to a table which maps the wireless logical ID of each wireless device to its radio ID, SAS and address translation sub-table entries.”; Dinur, col. 3, lines 55-58, “The information contains pairs of devices as identified by the networks scheme. For example, the logical bindings can indicate which Switch controls which lamp ballast.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the device mapping and binding-based routing of Dinur into the protocol translation device of Holmes, because Holmes translates and forwards a received packet but is silent on selecting which destination connection to use, while Dinur supplies a concrete mechanism, mapping tables and designated device associations, that resolves the connection over which a destination device is reached, yielding the predictable benefit of a translator that can serve more than one paired wireless device.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, Holmes discloses The method of claim 1 further comprising: determining that one or more translation operations should be performed on the first data packet, as Holmes further discloses the translator circuit is operable to translate between the first and second wireless protocols, which entails determining that the incoming first-protocol packet requires translation before it can be forwarded (Holmes, col. 3, lines 3-8 “The translator circuit 130 is operable to translate between the first wireless protocol and the second wireless protocol, is operable to communicate with the first antenna 122 on the first wireless protocol, and is operable to communicate with the second antenna 124 on the second wireless protocol.”).
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 2, Holmes discloses The method of claim 2 further comprising: decoding, using the dual-mode controller, the first data packet based on the first wireless protocol to generate decoded data; and encoding, using the dual-mode controller, the decoded data based on the second wireless protocol to generate encoded data, as Holmes further discloses the translator circuit receives the first-in signal on the first wireless protocol and translates it into a second-out signal conforming to the second wireless protocol, which under the broadest reasonable interpretation entails interpreting (decoding) the incoming first-protocol packet and re-forming (encoding) the recovered data according to the second protocol (Holmes, col. 3, lines 35-37 “The translator circuit 130 receives the first-in signal 121 and translates the first-in signal 121 to a second-out signal 123”; Holmes, col. 3, lines 37-40 “a second-out signal 123 which the second antenna 124 receives and passes to the second apparatus 170. The second-out signal 123 conforms to the second wireless protocol.”).
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 3, Holmes discloses The method of claim 3 further comprising: generating the second data packet based, at least in part, on the encoded data, as Holmes further discloses the second-out signal conforming to the second wireless protocol is produced from the translated data and passed to the second apparatus (Holmes, col. 3, lines 37-40 “a second-out signal 123 which the second antenna 124 receives and passes to the second apparatus 170. The second-out signal 123 conforms to the second wireless protocol.”).
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, Holmes in view of Dinur discloses The method of claim 1 further comprising: generating wireless connection data identifying a plurality of wireless connections; and generating a wireless device mapping based, at least in part, on the wireless connection data, the wireless device mapping identifying associations between wireless devices underlying the plurality of wireless connections, as Dinur further discloses a master controller automatically creates the wireless device mapping from the wireless logical ID and startup attribute set of each of the wireless devices on the network, connection data identifying the plurality of wireless connections, and the resulting mapping records, per wireless device, the radio ID and address translation sub-table entries that associate the underlying devices (Dinur, col. 5, lines 54-56, “using a master controller to automatically start to create a device mapping from a wireless logical ID of each of the wireless devices and its the SAS”; Dinur, col. 10, lines 48-51, “The term “wireless device mapping and the like substantially refer to a table which maps the wireless logical ID of each wireless device to its radio ID, SAS and address translation sub-table entries.”).
Accordingly, the rationale for combining Holmes and Dinur is the same as for claim 1.
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 5, Holmes in view of Dinur discloses The method of claim 5, wherein the wireless device mapping is generated based on routing parameters identifying wireless device associations, as Dinur further discloses binding information containing pairs of associated devices is prepared using the networks scheme and drives the creation of the logical links reflected in the mapping (Dinur, col. 3, lines 52-56, “Binding information contains information that will later be used to link devices. It may be prepared using the networks scheme to create logical links between devices. The information contains pairs of devices as identified by the networks scheme.”).
Accordingly, the rationale for combining Holmes and Dinur is the same as for claim 1 and claim 5.
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 7, Holmes in view of Dinur discloses The method of claim 7 further comprising: receiving the routing parameters from a user, as Dinur further discloses the commissioning-tool user interface lets the user browse the network scheme and device mapping tables, select the appropriate data, and initiate operations, so the binding/routing parameters are received through user input (Dinur, col. 13, lines 44-48, “The CT user interface allows the user to perform operations such as to browse through the networks Scheme or device mapping tables, to select the appropriate downloadable data and to initiate operations such as download data, read back, etc.”).
Accordingly, the rationale for combining Holmes and Dinur is the same as for claim 1, 5 and 7.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites: A system comprising: a transceiver configured to send and receive data packets wirelessly; one or more processors configured to implement a dual-mode controller, the dual-mode controller being configured to: receive an input via a first wireless connection, the input comprising a first data packet compatible with a first wireless protocol; identify a second wireless connection compatible with a second wireless protocol based on the received input, wherein the identifying of the second wireless connection is based on wireless routing parameters and designated wireless device associations between additional wireless devices communicatively coupled to the transceiver; and generate an output based, at least in part, on the received input and the second wireless protocol, the output comprising a second data packet compatible with the second wireless protocol. Claim 10 is analogous to claim 1, except that it is directed to a system, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 10, the claim recites: The system of claim 10, wherein the dual-mode controller is further configured to: decode the first data packet based on the first wireless protocol to generate decoded data; and encode the decoded data based on the second wireless protocol to generate encoded data. Claim 11 is analogous to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 11, the claim recites: The system of claim 11, wherein the dual-mode controller is further configured to: generate the second data packet based, at least in part, on the encoded data. Claim 12 is analogous to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 10, the claim recites: The system of claim 10, wherein the dual-mode controller is further configured to: generate wireless connection data identifying a plurality of wireless connections; and generate a wireless device mapping based, at least in part, on the wireless connection data, the wireless device mapping identifying associations between wireless devices underlying the plurality of wireless connections. Claim 13 is analogous to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites: A device comprising: one or more processors configured to implement a dual-mode controller, the dual-mode controller being configured to: receive an input via a first wireless connection, the input comprising a first data packet compatible with a first wireless protocol; identify a second wireless connection compatible with a second wireless protocol based on the received input, wherein the identifying of the second wireless connection is based on wireless routing parameters and designated wireless device associations between additional wireless devices communicatively coupled to the dual-mode controller; and generate an output based, at least in part, on the received input and the second wireless protocol, the output comprising a second data packet compatible with the second wireless protocol. Claim 16 is analogous to claim 1, except that it is directed to a device, and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, which depends on claim 16, the claim recites: The device of claim 16, wherein the dual-mode controller is further configured to: decode the first data packet based on the first wireless protocol to generate decoded data; and encode the decoded data based on the second wireless protocol to generate encoded data. Claim 17 is analogous to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 16, the claim recites: The device of claim 16, wherein the dual-mode controller is further configured to: generate wireless connection data identifying a plurality of wireless connections; and generate a wireless device mapping based, at least in part, on the wireless connection data, the wireless device mapping identifying associations between wireless devices underlying the plurality of wireless connections. Claim 18 is analogous to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 6, 9, 14, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Holmes (US 9,992,818) in view of Dinur (US 8,437,276) and further in view of HM (HM Bluetooth module datasheet, V212, 2014-10-01).
Regarding claim 6, which depends on claim 5, even though Holmes in view of Dinur teaches generating a wireless device mapping whose entries record each wireless device's radio ID (a connection identifier) and wireless logical ID (a device identifier): (Holmes, col. 3, lines 3-8; Dinur, col. 10, lines 48-51), Holmes in view of Dinur does not explicitly disclose the wireless device mapping further comprising a plurality of wireless protocol identifiers.
Nevertheless, Holmes in view of Dinur and further in view of HM discloses The method of claim 5, wherein the wireless device mapping comprises a plurality of wireless connection identifiers, a plurality of wireless device identifiers, and a plurality of wireless protocol identifiers because HM teaches a dual mode Bluetooth module that carries a distinct, protocol-identifying address for each of its two protocols, an SPP address prefix and a BLE address prefix, so the identifiers recorded for such a device distinguish the wireless protocol in use (HM, System MAC address section, “Each dual mode module contains two IEEE addresses, like follow: 00: 0E: 0E: XX: XX: XX (00: 0E: 0E is SPP address) 00: 0E: 0B: XX: XX: XX (00: 0E: 0B is BLE address)”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include protocol-identifying entries as taught by HM in the wireless device mapping of the Holmes-Dinur combination, because HM shows that a dual-mode device is addressed by protocol-specific identifiers, and recording those identifiers in the mapping predictably lets the controller select the correct protocol when reaching each associated device.
Regarding claim 9, which depends on claim 1, even though Holmes in view of Dinur teaches translating a received packet between a first and a second wireless protocol, with Holmes listing Bluetooth and Bluetooth Low Energy among the protocols usable by its translator: (Holmes, col. 4, lines 21-24; Dinur, col. 23, lines 48-52), Holmes in view of Dinur does not explicitly disclose the first wireless protocol being a Bluetooth protocol and the second wireless protocol being a Bluetooth Low Energy protocol.
Conversely, Holmes in view of Dinur and further in view of HM discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the first wireless protocol is a Bluetooth protocol, and wherein the second wireless protocol is a Bluetooth Low Energy protocol because HM teaches a single dual mode module in which classic Bluetooth (SPP) and Bluetooth Low Energy operate concurrently, with data received from the SPP-connected device forwarded to the BLE-connected device (HM, AT+ATOB command description, “When A device (SPP mode) connect to the module and B device (BLE mode) is also connect to the module, The data string from A device send to the module will send to B device.”).
For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to select Bluetooth as the first wireless protocol and Bluetooth Low Energy as the second wireless protocol in the relay of Holmes and Dinur, because Holmes states that the first and second protocols can be any wireless protocols for which translation is desired and expressly lists Bluetooth and Bluetooth Low Energy among the options, and HM demonstrates that classic Bluetooth and BLE coexist on a single dual-mode chip with traffic passing from one to the other, a selection from a finite set of identified, known protocols yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 14, which depends on claim 13, the claim recites: The system of claim 13, wherein the wireless device mapping comprises a plurality of wireless connection identifiers, a plurality of wireless device identifiers, and a plurality of wireless protocol identifiers. Claim 14 is analogous to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 10, the claim recites: The system of claim 10, wherein the first wireless protocol is a Bluetooth protocol, and wherein the second wireless protocol is a Bluetooth Low Energy protocol. Claim 15 is analogous to claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 18, the claim recites: The device of claim 18, wherein the wireless device mapping comprises a plurality of wireless connection identifiers, a plurality of wireless device identifiers, and a plurality of wireless protocol identifiers. Claim 19 is analogous to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 16, the claim recites: The device of claim 16, wherein the first wireless protocol is a Bluetooth protocol, and wherein the second wireless protocol is a Bluetooth Low Energy protocol. Claim 20 is analogous to claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy under 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, the period for reply will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST
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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights