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 .
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 B2; “Holmes”) in view of Dinur (US 8,437,276 B2; “Dinur”).
Regarding claim 1, Holmes in col. 8, lines 13-18 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; receiving a first-in signal at a protocol translation device via a first antenna, where the received signal conforms to a first communication protocol (Holmes, col. 8, lines 13-18)
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; translating the received signal to a second-out signal that conforms to a second communication protocol (Holmes, col. 8, lines 18-24):
Holmes further discloses: and transmitting the output via the second wireless connection using the second wireless protocol. transmitting the second-out signal via a second antenna to the second apparatus (Holmes, col. 8, lines 22-25)
With respect to claim 1, Holmes does not explicitly disclose selecting, based on the received signal, which outgoing wireless link is to be used for communications under the outgoing protocol: identifying a second wireless connection compatible with a second wireless protocol based on the received input;
PNG
media_image1.png
635
768
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Dinur teaches using stored mapping/address-translation information to translate received binding information into binding commands containing radio IDs and endpoints for the addressed devices, (i.e., “a second wireless protocol based on the received input” as claimed) thereby determining the appropriate target device/link for issued commands (Dinur, col. 4, lines 45-55).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of claimed invention to modify Holmes’s protocol translation device to incorporate the mapping/binding techniques of Dinur so that, in environments with multiple connected devices and links used by the wireless protocols, the translation device can use stored mapping/binding data to determine the appropriate destination device/link associated with the protocols for forwarded communications, because Dinur teaches translating binding information into radio IDs/endpoints for the addressed devices and transmitting binding commands based on that translation to form/enable device links (Dinur, col. 4, lines 6-12, col. 4, lines 45-55).
Doing so would have predictably yielded a protocol translation arrangement that preserves Holmes’s protocol-conversion functionality while enabling correct addressing/forwarding among multiple devices using known mapping/binding structures, with a reasonable expectation of success because both Holmes and Dinur employ conventional wireless transceivers/controllers and established mapping/binding data structures for communication and configuration (Holmes, col. 8, lines 13-25; Dinur, col. 13, lines 11-20).
Regarding claim 2, Holmes in col. 1 lines 62-67 and col. 8, lines 18-24 discloses: The method of claim 1 further comprising: determining that one or more translation operations should be performed on the first data packet.
PNG
media_image2.png
301
963
media_image2.png
Greyscale
translating a received signal conforming to a first protocol into a signal conforming to a second protocol, thereby applying protocol-conversion to the received signal (also Holmes, col. 8, lines 18-24):
Regarding claim 3, Holmes in col. 1, lines 45-52 and col. 8, lines 18-24 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.
PNG
media_image3.png
368
1068
media_image3.png
Greyscale
converting a signal that conforms to a first protocol into a signal that conforms to a second protocol (Holmes, col. 8, lines 18-24), which necessarily entails interpreting the received protocol-specific representation and generating an output in the second protocol-specific representation.
Regarding claim 4, Holmes discloses: The method of claim 3 further comprising: generating the second data packet based, at least in part, on the encoded data. that the translated second-out signal conforms to the second protocol and is generated from translation of the received signal (Holmes, col. 8, lines 18-25):
Regarding claim 5, Holmes does not explicitly disclose generating and using stored mapping/binding information corresponding to multiple wireless links and device associations: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.
However, Dinur teaches devices interconnected by wireless communication links and storing, in a database, a network scheme along with device mapping tables and binding information, where the binding information defines logical links between devices (Dinur, col. 3, lines 13-18; col. 13, lines 11-20; col. 15, lines 40-52).
Accordingly, the rationale to combine Holmes with Dinur is the same as described in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 7, Holmes does not explicitly disclose: The method of claim 5, wherein the wireless device mapping is generated based on routing parameters identifying wireless device associations. However, Dinur discloses defining binding information as logical links between endpoints of devices, thereby defining device associations for communications/control (Dinur, col. 15, lines 40-52)
Accordingly, the rationale to combine Holmes with Dinur is the same as described in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Holmes does not explicitly disclose: The method of claim 7 further comprising: receiving the routing parameters from a user.
PNG
media_image4.png
560
902
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Dinur teaches that a commissioning tool user interface allows a user to browse through a network scheme and mapping tables and to select configuration data for download, and further teaches that network scheme and binding information may be created by an architectural designer, thereby providing user-specified association information used by the system (Dinur, col. 13, lines 40-46; col. 3, lines 28-36):
Accordingly, the rationale to combine Holmes with Dinur is the same as described in claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 10, Holmes in col. 3, lines 12-16 discloses configuring the first apparatus including processor and memory and also in col. 6, lines 28- 32 discloses an RF transceiver (reconfigurable RF module MCU) 428 operably connected to the first antenna 422: 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; 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. therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 1
Regarding claim 11, 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. therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 3
Regarding claim 12, 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 therefore, claim 4 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 4
Regarding claim 13, 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 45therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons set forth.
Regarding claim 16, 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; 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 therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons set forth.
Regarding claim 17, 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, 11 therefore, claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons set forth.
Regarding claim 18, 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 13 is analogous to claim 45therefore, claim 13 is rejected for the same reasons set forth.
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 B2; “Holmes”) in view of Dinur (US 8,437,276 B2; “Dinur”) and further in view of HM Bluetooth module datasheet (V212, 2014-10-01; “HM datasheet”).
Regarding claim 6, Holmes in view of Dinur does not explicitly disclose including protocol-mode identifiers in the device mapping data structure: 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.
PNG
media_image5.png
416
1668
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, HM dual mode Bluetooth module datasheet teaches that each dual mode module contains two distinct MAC addresses, (i.e., “i.e., “plurality of wireless device identifiers” as claimed) one designated as an SPP address and one designated as a BLE address (HM datasheet, p. 11), wherein SPP and BLE are a plurality of wireless protocol identifiers” as claimed.
PNG
media_image6.png
222
1068
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of claimed invention to modify Holmes’s protocol translation device to incorporate the mapping/binding techniques of Dinur so that providing protocol-specific identifiers that would have been used with HM Bluetooth module’s mapping identifiers such as system MAC address endpoints to distinguish connections using different protocols/mode per device.
Regarding claim 9, Holmes in view of Dinur do not explicitly disclose implementing the first communications protocol as Bluetooth (Classic) and the second as BLE: 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. However, HM datasheet teaches a dual mode module supporting SPP (i.e., Bluetooth “Serial Port Profile”, RS-232 emulator) and BLE (i.e. “Bluetooth Low Energy” protocol, HM datasheet, p. 4) and further teaches an A-to-B forwarding mode in which an A device in SPP mode and a B device in BLE mode are concurrently connected and data is forwarded between them (HM datasheet, p. 14).
Accordingly, the rationale to combine Holmes in view of Dinur and further in view of HM Bluetooth module is the same as described in claim 6 above.
Regarding claim 14, 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 therefore, claim 14 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 6.
Regarding claim 15, 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 therefore, claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 9.
Regarding claim 19, 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, 14 therefore, claim 19 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 6.
Regarding claim 20, 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, 15 therefore, claim 20 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 9.
Conclusion
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