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
The amendment to the claims filed on 06/23/2026 complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) and has been entered. Claims 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 12, 14-15, and 17-18 are amended. Claims 5 and 16 are canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed 06/23/2026 have been fully considered as follows.
Arguments regarding the § 112 rejections are persuasive and these rejections are withdrawn with the caveat of Applicant’s interpretation of the challenged limitations in those claims being now for the record.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the §102(a)(2) rejection have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 13, and their dependent claims, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint, regards as the invention.
Claims 7 and 13 recite the limitation “the performance information of the external electronic device.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each claim due to amendments to the independent claims they depend from.
Therefore, Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) for indefiniteness.
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, 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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6-15, and 17-20, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwami et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0069761 (hereinafter Iwami) further in view of Lee et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0373914 (hereinafter Lee).
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Iwami teaches, in Fig. 3, an electronic device comprising: a communication circuit configured to support simultaneous transmission and reception of signals of different frequency bands of short-range wireless communication (“The source device 100 includes an antenna 110, a wireless communication unit 120” – See [¶0099] whereby “[t]he wireless communication unit 120 sends and receives information (e.g., image data and sound data) to and from another information processing apparatus (e.g., the first sink device 200)” – See [¶0100] and “has a function capable of sending and receiving three frequency channels of 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6[] GHz” but “may, for example, have a function capable of sending and receiving another frequency channel or two or four or more frequency channels” – See [¶0123] and “thus able to perform media transmission between itself and other devices according to Wi-Fi CERTIFIED Miracast specifications” – See [¶0102] in a “wireless LAN [that] may include, for example, an Infrastructure mode (Wi-Fi Infrastructure mode), Wireless Fidelity (Wi-Fi) Direct, tunneled direct link setup (TDLS), ad hoc network, or a mesh network” and “Wi-Fi CERTIFIED Miracast (technical specification title: Wi-Fi Display) . . . may be used as short-distance wireless audio visual (AV) transmission communication for use in the communication system 10” – See [¶0077] and Fig. 1);
memory storing one or more instructions; a processor operatively connected to the communication circuit and the memory – See Figs. 3 and 4; wherein the one or more instructions are executed by the processor, to cause the electronic device to:
perform discovery of an external electronic device to be connected to the electronic device via the short-range wireless communication (“The source device 100 (P2P GO) also transmits a beacon, authenticates a device that is joining the group, and provides connection setting information (credentials) to a device that is joining the group” – See [¶00858], e.g., “FIG. 2 illustrates an example in which the second sink device 43 joins a group in an environment where the source device 41 is connected to the first sink device 42 by way of P2P direct communication” – See [¶0090] whereby “the source device 41 performs a P2P Invitation Request process on the second sink device 43 (24). Alternatively, the second sink device 43 may perform a P2P Provision Discovery Request process on the source device 41” – See [¶0092] and “[t]hen, the source device 41 performs service discovery processes (32, 33) between itself and the first sink device 42 and the second sink device 43, thereby setting up a multi-sink topology” – See [¶0095] and Fig. 2; see also Fig. 28 showing P2P client discovery procedure1 at steps 415-424, further described in [¶¶0274-84]; therefore, “[t]he wireless communication unit 120 [of each device] is thus able to perform media transmission between itself and other devices according to Wi-Fi CERTIFIED Miracast specifications” – See [¶0102]);
receive a message during a group owner (GO) negotiation procedure performed between the external electronic device and the electronic device, the message including a GO intent value (“the source device 100, the first sink device 200, and the second sink device 300 are a wireless communication apparatus based on Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE) 802.11” – See [¶0074] whereby “[i]n the direct communication mode, each of the devices (the source device and the sink devices) is, for example, in a state as either a P2P group owner (GO), a P2P client (P2P Client), or P2P unconfigured (P2P Device),” i.e., an external device – See [¶0083] wherein the P2P GO “also plays a role as an access point in the group” – See [¶0085]; then, “[i]f the second sink device 300 becomes a P2P GO, then a GO Negotiation may be performed between the source device 100 and the second sink device 300, so that the second sink device 300 is connected as a P2P GO” – See [¶0400] and Fig. 32, whereby “the source device 100 grasps a frequency channel for being P2P-connected to the second sink device 300, establishing a P2P connection” – See [¶0257] “and thereafter exchanges at least one of the following items . . . P2P IE (Information Element); WFD IE (Information Element)” – See [¶¶0258-60] whereby the WFD IE is described in Figs. 22-26; see also Fig. 8, Wi-Fi P2P TS, at page 40, showing the GO Negotiation message exchange, reproduced hereinafter, containing the standard P2P Information Element comprising Channel list and Operating channel attributes, reproduced aa Table 7 in Lee:[¶0195], infra) and
select a first frequency band or a first channel for connection to the external electronic device (because the source device has “a codec capable of adapting itself freely to the resolution of an information processing apparatus (sink device) on the receiving side” – See [¶0111], and “[t]he controller 140 of the source device 100 can control a process of deciding which frequency channel of a plurality of frequency channels is to use for wireless communication with each sink device” – See [¶0121] e.g., select the second frequency band with a higher data transmission speed indicated by the second sink device, in response to the sink device supporting, e.g., HD/4K video formats when supported by the “control processes on the image/sound signal generator 150 and the image/sound compressor 160” – See [¶0104])
PNG
media_image1.png
533
975
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Although Iwami teaches the P2P IE or WDF IE comprising the GO intent value, Iwami does not teach the GO intent value being configured to be different based on whether the external electronic device supports simultaneous transmission and reception of signals of different frequency bands and a frequency band of a channel between the external electronic device and an access point (AP) connected to the external electronic device.
Lee, like Iwami, teaches “a method and apparatus for performing Wi-Fi P2P connection between devices in wireless communication systems efficiently” – See [¶0006] including “a method and apparatus for dynamically determining an Intent value by considering states or surroundings of a terminal” – See [¶0013] when “determining an Intent value in the method for determining a Group Owner between devices” – See [¶0012] based on “[a]n algorithm for determining the Intent value . . . called Dynamic Intent Value Assignment (DIVA)” – See [¶0248] whereby a GO negotiation happens between “[t]he first device 610 and the second device 620 that acquire the first Intent value and the second Intent value, respectively through the 1st Group Owner Negotiation Request Frame and the 1st Group Owner Negotiation Response Frame may compare the first Intent value and the second Intent value” – See [¶0257] and Fig. 15).
Lee further teaches the GO intent value being configured to be different based on whether the external electronic device supports simultaneous transmission and reception of signals of different frequency bands (“a device may be inputted a plurality of parameters in order to determine the Intent value. The parameters may be divided by General Parameters and Specific Parameters, and the General Parameters may be determined by considering a state of the device itself and surroundings of the device” – See [¶0239] and Table 13, wherein a person of ordinary skills in the art could reasonably assume that “Ability of Concurrent Operation” and/or “Current Usage of Concurrent Operation” represent support of simultaneous transmission and reception of signals of different frequency bands; furthermore, “Specific Parameters are parameters considering use case such as on which role is performed in a group by the device, values determined when manufactured” including Miracast source – See [¶0242] and Table 14; see also Table 7 showing the P2P Capability exchanged during GO negotiation procedure, whereby § 4.1.4, Wi-Fi P2P TS, at page 84-85, describes the P2P Capability attribute format, different from the ”Operating Channel” and the “Channel list” attributed of the P2P IE, the capability being described as a “Device Capability Bitmap” and a “Group Capability Bitmap,” the Device Capability Bitmap comprising, among others, a bit indicating “Concurrent Operation field shall be set to 1 when the P2P Device supports Concurrent Operation with WLAN” and a bit indicating “when the P2P interface of the P2P Device is capable of being managed by the WLAN (infrastructure network) based on P2P Coexistence Parameters,” i.e., similar to a WFD device as disclosed in Iwami, wherein, as shown in Iwami Fig. 26, the New Device Information indicates the wireless ability including support of simultaneous transmission and reception of signals of different frequency bands and source/sink capability an WLAN infrastructure use, e.g., an access point (AP) connected to the device on one of the frequency bands)
and a frequency band of a channel between the external electronic device and an access point (AP) connected to the external electronic device (“The General Parameters are input values such that a device available to perform . . . a role of an access point (AP) and control a connection configuration” or be simultaneously controlled by a WLAN as explained supra – See [¶0241] and Fig. 14, showing the calculation of the intent value based on multiple weighted parameters) and
select a first frequency band or a first channel for connection to the external electronic device, as explained in Iwami, supra.
Thus, Iwami and Lee each disclose a GO Negotiation process in a wireless system supporting P2P communications between two devices whereby a GO Intent value is compared to decide the GO. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the dynamic allocation intent value whereby a General Parameter such as simultaneous transmission and reception of signals of different frequency bands and AP role in a specific operating channel as taught by the method and apparatus in Lee, could have been substituted in for the GO negotiation process between the source device and the external sink device in Iwami because in both cases the GO negotiation process is based on the intent value each device presents. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the substitution through techniques known in the art. Finally, the substitution achieves the predictable result of allowing dynamic allocation of one GO intent value by considering states/capabilities and/or surroundings of a terminal, including consideration of multiple General and Specific parameters, as taught in Lee.
Therefore, Amended Claim 1 is obvious over Iwami in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 2, dependent from Claim 1, Iwami further teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the performance information of the external electronic device comprises information indicating at least one candidate channel or at least one candidate frequency band to be used in case that the external electronic device transmits data via the short-range wireless communication (“Wi-Fi CERTIFIED Miracast (technical specification title: Wi-Fi Display), for example, may be used as short-distance wireless audio visual (AV) transmission communication for use in the communication system 10” – See [¶0077] and Fig. 1, then the WDF IE of the sink device indicates available Frequency Channel Numbers, as shown in Fig. 26, e.g., “for accessing the second sink device 300 using the TDLS process, associated frequency information (field [23:14] illustrated in FIG. 26) between the access point and the second sink device 300 can be used” – See [¶0266]).
Therefore, Claim 2 is obvious over Iwami in view of Lee.
Regarding Amended Claim 3, dependent from Claim 2, Iwami further teaches the electronic device of claim 2, wherein the at least one candidate channel comprises a second channel connected between the external electronic device and a first AP connected to the external electronic device (when the sink device is “a smartphone 900 to which a technique according to the present disclosure may be applied” comprising “wireless communication interface 913, an antenna switch 914, an antenna 915” – See [¶0485], “the wireless communication interface 913 can communicate with other devices through a wireless LAN access point” and “may support, in addition to the wireless LAN system, other types of wireless communication systems including a short-distance wireless communication system” like Miracast – See [¶0488] and Fig. 45)
wherein the at least one candidate frequency band comprises a second frequency band in which signal transmission/reception is capable of being performed simultaneously while signal transmission/reception is performed via a third frequency band corresponding to the second channel connected between the external electronic device and the first AP wherein the second frequency band is different from the third frequency band ( “the wireless communication unit 220 has a function capable of sending and receiving three frequency channels of 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6[] GHz simultaneously . . . Specifically, the wireless communication unit 220 is capable of performing a communication process using a first frequency band and a communication process using a second frequency band with a higher data transmission speed than the first frequency band” and “[t]he controller 270 can also control a process of deciding which frequency channel of a plurality of frequency channels is to use for wireless communication with each source device”– See [¶0121], i.e., the 5GHz and the 6 GHz can be used simultaneously for Miracast, while using the 2.4GHz band for AP access, and the device “may have a plurality of antennas (e.g., an antenna for a wireless LAN, an antenna a proximity wireless communication system, and an antenna for public link communication). In such a case, the antenna switch 914 may be omitted from the arrangement of the smartphone 900” – See [¶0489], i.e., the AP channel and the P2P Miracast channels use different antenna; furthermore, the smartphone can be a source or a sink device because whereby “[i]n the smartphone 900 illustrated in FIG. 45, the controller 140 described with reference to FIG. 3 and the controller 270 described with reference to FIG. 4 may be implemented by the wireless communication interface 913” – See [¶0491]).
Therefore, Amended Claim 3 is obvious over Iwami in view of Lee.
Regarding Amended Claim 4, dependent from Amended Claim 3, Iwami further teaches the electronic device of claim 3, wherein, in case that the electronic device is connected to a second AP via the short-range wireless communication (“it is expected that P2P direct connections typified by Wi-Fi CERTIFIED Miracast will begin from now on to be compatible with a plurality of sink devices (hereinafter referred to as multi-sink topology)” – See [¶0472], e.g., the electronic device may be “a car navigation apparatus 920 to which a technique according to the present disclosure may be applied” – See [¶0493] connected in “a direct communication mode such as an ad hoc mode or Wi-Fi Direct or the like, the wireless communication interface 933 can communicate directly with other devices” through “a plurality of antenna elements, and is used to send and receive wireless signals via the wireless communication interface 933” – See [¶0498], e.g., communicates directly with a second smartphone acting as a source and as an AP because any “smartphone 900 may operate as a wireless access point (software AP) when the processor 901 performs an access point function at an application level” – See [¶0492], e.g., “making it possible to provide ordinary services for . . . vehicle devices that require real-timeness” – See [¶0228]), the processor is configured to
select the first channel to be used for connection to the external electronic device based on a fourth frequency band of a third channel between the electronic device and the second AP (e.g., a channel in the 2.4GHz band as the third channel different from the second channel supra in a fourth frequency band that is the same as the third frequency band but using an SSID announced by the second smartphone that is different from the SSID announced by the first smart phone because the “SSID for a device to be launched as a P2P GO may be stored in a message” – See [¶0403]),
the attribute of the application, the at least one candidate channel, or the at least one candidate frequency band (e.g., using a channel in one of the (other two) 5 GHz, and 6 GHz bands based on which one has “a higher data transmission speed” as indicated by “[t]he controller 270 [that] can also control a process of deciding which frequency channel of a plurality of frequency channels is to use for wireless communication with each source device”– See [¶0121], when the first smartphone has HD video capability, i.e., an attribute of the Miracast application – See, e.g., Fig. 31).
Therefore, Amended Claim 4 is obvious over Iwami in view of Lee.
Regarding Amended Claim 6, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Iwami further teaches the electronic device of claim 5, wherein the GO intent value is configured to be different (e.g., the Intent Value is very high, e.g. “15” indicating external device interest in becoming a P2P GO– See [¶0363]) and
that the external device may operate on a second frequency band of a second channel between the external electronic device and a first access point (AP) connected to the external electronic device and that the external electronic device is capable of supporting signal transmission/reception via two different frequency bands simultaneously (e.g., the external device “has a function capable of sending and receiving three frequency channels of 2.4 GHz, 5 GHz, and 6[] GHz simultaneously” – See [¶0121], e.g., using the 2.4GHz frequency band for the second channel to the first AP, and when “the source device 100 sends a Probe Request via an access point to the second sink device 300 to search for a P2P-connectable device” – See [¶0255], the “concurrent information (field [5:2] illustrated in FIG. 26) of the wireless link of the second sink device 300” – See [¶0266] indicates the device is capable of supporting signal transmission/reception via two different frequency bands simultaneously, e.g., 5GHz and 6GHz, i.e., the device “is compatible with a plurality of operations . . . capable of simultaneously performing different processes on a plurality of other devices” – See [¶0198], therefore can be a GO, and “then a GO Negotiation may be performed between the source device 100 and the second sink device 300, so that the second sink device 300 is connected as a P2P GO” – See [¶0400]).
However, Iwami does not teach the GO intent value is configured to be different based on the aforementioned capabilities of the external electronic device. Lee teaches this feature and also that “[a]n algorithm for determining the Intent value may be called Dynamic Intent Value Assignment (DIVA)” – See [¶0248] whereby “[t]he parameter values may be defined from Pl to Pn,” – See [¶0245] e.g., different values correspond to: (1) device supports simultaneous transmission and reception of signals of different frequency bands; (2) a frequency band of a channel between the external electronic device and an access point (AP) connected to the external electronic device; and (3) a second frequency band of a second channel between the external electronic device and a first access point (AP) connected to the external electronic device; each of then weighted and summed, as shown in Fig. 14, to yield a proportionate, i.e., different, GO Intent Value. It would be obvious for a person of ordinary skills in eth art at the effective date of filing the present application that more capabilities the device has, e.g., as communicated through the “Device Capability Bitmap” during the GO Negotiation, as explained in Regarding Amended Claim 1 supra, higher the GO Intent Value would be.
Therefore, Iwami in view of Lee teaches that the GO intent value is configured to be different based on a second frequency band of a second channel between the external electronic device and a first access point (AP) connected to the external electronic device and based on whether the external electronic device is capable of supporting signal transmission/reception via two different frequency bands simultaneously (a device like the one with ethe P2P Capabilities described in Iwami “is adequate to the role of Group Owner is available to be determined as a Group Owner by dynamically generating Intent values by considering current state of device itself . . . and surroundings . . . through the DIVA algorithm” – See Lee:[¶0251).
Therefore, Claim 6 is obvious over Iwami in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 7, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Iwami further teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein [[the]]a performance information of the external electronic device is included in an operating channel attribute received during the GO negotiation (in “a process of encapsulating WFD IE in the payload of a Probe Request or a Probe Response” – See [¶0263] and Fig. 28, showing a GO negotiation process, “Examples of formats using WFD IE . . . are illustrated in FIGS. 22 through 26” wherein “a new Field corresponding to Subelement ID (11) is illustrated in FIGS. 25 and 26” – See [¶0264] wherein “[i]n FIG. 26, [5:0] of New Device Information field represents information for the second sink device 300 to decide an optimum frequency channel in a P2P connection” including whether “a simultaneous connection of different frequency channels is possible (field [5:2] illustrated in FIG. 26)” – See [¶0265]; see also Table 7, Lee:[¶0195] describing the the P2P IE exchanged during the GO Negotiation contains the “Operating Channel” and “Channel List” attributes in Fig. 8, Wi-Fi TS P2P, reproduced supra).
Therefore, Claim 7 is obvious over Iwami in view of Lee.
Regarding Amended Claim 8, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Iwami further teaches the electronic device of claim 1, wherein the performance information of the external electronic device is included in a vendor specific information element VSIE received during the discovery of the external electronic device (“as part of a Device Discovery Request or Device Discovery Response . . . exchanging at least one of the following items . . . P2P IE (Information Element) . . . WFD IE (Information Element)” – See [¶¶0278-80] and Fig. 22 showing an example of a WFD IE of variable length “set to 4 plus the total length of WFD subelements,” i.e., including the New Device Information subelement shown in Fig. 25 and expanded in Fig. 26, showing bits 2-5 indicating device capability for simultaneous connections; see also §5, Wi-Fi Alliance “Wi-Fi Display” Technical Specification Version 2.1, 2017 (hereinafter Wi-Fi WFD TS), stating at page 80 that “ The WFD communication protocol is based on the use of the WFD Information Element (WFD IE) and WFD action frame formats. These utilize the Vendor Specific Information Element and Vendor Specific Action frame formats as specified in IEEE Std 802.11-2007 [14] with the Wi-Fi Alliance OUI and OUI Type indicating Wi-Fi Display. A number of WFD subelements are defined; a single WFD IE carries one or more WFD subelements. Byte ordering within the multi-octet fields shall be in network byte order (big-endian)”, showing WFD subelement ID value 11 as “WFD R2 Device Information,” i.e., for further implementations).
Therefore, Amended Claim 8 is obvious over Iwami in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 9, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Iwami further teaches the electronic device of claim 1,
wherein the attribute of the application comprises a first attribute indicating that the application provides a service that requires high quality of service (QoS) (when “[t]he wireless communication unit 120 is thus able to perform media transmission between itself and other devices according to Wi-Fi CERTIFIED Miracast specifications” – See [¶0102], “the controller 140 performs a control process for changing the resolution of image data as an object to be sent and the number of channels of sound data” – See [¶0104] and “may have a function to measure a radio-wave propagation state (link radiowave propagation state) while data are being sent to and received from a sink device” – See [¶0105] whereby the “measurement information represents, for example, information used for determining whether the quality of a link to a sink device is a quality capable of sending and receiving image data and sound data” – See [¶0106], i.e., the link quality is a first attribute indicating that the Miracast service requires high QoS from the link, e.g., for HD/4K transmissions – See [¶0125])
or a second attribute indicating that the application provides a service that requires a high transmission speed or a high reception speed (“the source device (e.g., a server) performs a service for grasping the reception abilities of the respective sink devices and making settings in a way led by the source device. For example, as typified by MPEG dynamic adaptive streaming over HTTP (DASH), an environment in which the sink devices request qualities (image quality and sound quality) and a transmission rate from the source device and the source device transmits data at the requested qualities (image quality and sound quality) and transmission rate is often established” – See [¶0471], i.e., a second application attribute is the “transmission rate,” e.g., when the sink device is “capable of performing a communication process using a first frequency band and a communication process using a second frequency band with a higher data transmission speed than the first frequency band” – See [¶0121] and “the controller 140 grasps system performance information of a sink device . . . through an exchange of information with the sink device” including “a resolution” (e.g., high) and “standard definition/high definition (SD/HD)/4K compatibility” (e.g., 4K) – See [¶0108]; the second attribute indicates that the application provides a service that requires a high transmission speed because “[t]he index of image quality may be represented by the throughput of a stream” – See [¶0107].
Therefore, Claim 9 is obvious over Iwami in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 10, dependent from Claim 9, Iwami further teaches the electronic device of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to
select the first channel based on channel information of a first access point (AP) connected to the electronic device and channel information of a second (AP) connected to the external electronic device (if all APs use the same frequency band, e.g., 2.4GHz, or because first AP is the second AP, “the source device 100 sends a Probe Request via an access point to the second sink device 300 to search for a P2P-connectable device” and “then the source device 100 can detect a frequency channel to be used in a P2P connection by receiving a Probe Response via an access point” because the “WFD IE illustrated in FIGS. 22 through 26 can be exchanged via access points between the devices that make up the communication system 10” – See [¶¶0255-6]; then “the source device 100 can decide an optimum frequency channel in a P2P connection to the second sink device 300 by grasping items of information” such as “a simultaneous connection of the same frequency channels, or a simultaneous connection of different frequency channels is possible (field [5:2] illustrated in FIG. 26)” – See [¶0266] i.e., the source device receives information about the frequency bands supported by the sink device and any of the source and sink device, or both, select a frequency band for P2P communication different from the AP’s frequency band to avoid interference, an obvious issue known in the art)
based on identifying that the attribute of the application is the first attribute (“[i]f the second sink device 300 is also compatible with a wireless link, then it is possible to select one of supported frequency channels and connect to the second sink device 300 through the selected frequency channel” whereby “the source device 100 can . . . decide an optimum frequency channel,” – See [¶0267], i.e., a first link on the 5GHz frequency band or a second link on the 6GHZ frequency band, e.g., based on “whether the quality of a link to a sink device is a quality capable of sending and receiving image data and sound data” – See [¶0106], i.e., the first application attribute).
Therefore, Claim 10 is obvious over Iwami in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 11, dependent from Claim 9, Iwami further teaches the electronic device of claim 9, wherein the processor is configured to
select the first channel based on a simultaneous support frequency band of the electronic device and a simultaneous support frequency band of the external electronic device based on identifying that the attribute of the application corresponds to the second attribute (e.g., (“[i]f the second sink device 300 is also compatible with a wireless link, then it is possible to select one of supported frequency channels and connect to the second sink device 300 through the selected frequency channel” whereby “the source device 100 can . . . decide an optimum frequency channel,” – See [¶0267], i.e., a first link on the 5GHz frequency band or a second link on the 6GHz frequency band based on the sink device being “capable of performing a communication process using a first frequency band and a communication process using a second frequency band with a higher data transmission speed than the first frequency band” – See [¶0121], i.e., a second application attribute),
Therefore, Claim 11 is obvious over Iwami in view of Lee.
Regarding Amended Claim 12, Iwami also teaches an operation method of an electronic device (“The processing sequences described in the above embodiments may be understood as a method including those sequences” – See [¶0503]), the method comprising: the steps executed by the electronic device of Amended Claim 1. Because Claim 1 is obvious over Iwami in view of Lee, Amended Claim 12 is also anticipated by Iwami.
Regarding Claims 13-15 and 17-19, as amended, dependent from Amended Claim 12, each claim requires the same limitations as required by Claims 2-4, and 6, and 8-9, respectively, recited with the same language, only applied to the method of Amended Claim 12. Because each of the Claims 2-4, 6, 8-9, and 12 are obvious over Iwami in view of Lee, each of the Claims 13-15 and 17-19, as amended, is obvious over Iwami in view of Lee.
Regarding Claim 20, dependent from Amended Claim 12, the claim requires only one of the limitations recited in each of the Claims 10 and 11, recited with the same language, only applied to the method of Amended Claim 12. Because each of the Claims 10-12 is obvious over Iwami in view of Lee, Claim 20 is obvious over Iwami in view of Lee.
In sum, Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as obvious over Iwami in view of Lee.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
All references included in the IDSs filed 04/04/2024 and 01/29/2025;
Thakur et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0094958 teaches a “wireless device's group owner intent value may be based upon . . . one or more other parameters including, for example, . . . remaining power in the wireless device, . . ., and/or received signal strength indicator (RSSI) value” or “whether the wireless device is able to perform a cross-connection between an infrastructure WLAN service and a P2P group” and “wireless devices WD1-WD4 may dynamically configure and/or adjust how the group owner intent values are determined” – See [¶0028];
Kubota, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0224569 discloses that “when the power supply status is ON at the transmission of the group owner negotiation request frame, the intent value is increased while when the power supply status is OFF at the transmission of the group owner negotiation request frame, the intent value is decreased” – See [¶0095] and “the device having a battery charge higher than that of the other device is determined as the P2P group owner” – See [¶0096];
Iwami et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0332210 discloses P2P group formation;
Iwami et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0004383 discloses source device checks whether each sink device is in accessibility mode at the time of connection, and determines whether or not metadata for supporting disability (for example, audios, videos, texts, vibration information, or the like) is added to the sink device;
Iwami et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0053149 discloses P2P communication between device according to a Wi-Fi CERTIFIED Miracast specification;
Gupta et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0127950 discloses managed P2P operations in enterprise wireless networks;
Yu, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2020/0145372 discloses bridging traffic between a legacy network and a P2P group;
Park et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0141786 discloses WFD P2P link establishment/communication and neighbor discovery;
Oh, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2015/0249946 discloses NFC communication;
Yin et al., China Patent Application Publication No. CN 202010108863 discloses Wi-Fi point-to-point connection and devices;
Wi-Fi Alliance, “Wi-Fi Peer-to-Peer (P2P)” Technical Specification Version 1.5, 2014, available for download at https://www.wi-fi.org/specifications;
Wi-Fi Alliance “Wi-Fi Display” Technical Specification Version 2.1, 2017, available for download at https://www.wi-fi.org/specifications;
Wi-Fi Alliance, “Wi-Fi Peer-to-Peer Services (P2Ps)” Technical Specification (for Wi-Fi Direct® services certification) Version 1.2, 2014, available for download at https://www.wi-fi.org/specifications;
Casetti et al., “Data Connectivity and Smart Group Formation in Wi-Fi Direct Multi-Group Networks,” IEEE Transactions On Network And Service Management, Vol. 15, No. 1, March 2018;
F. Li et al., "A Local Communication System Over Wi-Fi Direct: Implementation and Performance Evaluation," in IEEE Internet of Things Journal, vol. 7, no. 6, pp. 5140-5158, June 2020, doi: 10.1109/JIOT.2020.2976114.
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 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCIA GHEORGHE GRADINARIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm 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, Joseph AVELLINO 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.
/L.G.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2478 /JAY L VOGEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478
1 See also, Wi-Fi Alliance, “Wi-Fi Peer-to-Peer (P2P) Technical Specification” Version 1.5, 2014, available for download at https://www.wi-fi.org/specifications, (hereinafter Wi-Fi P2P TS), describing, in § 3.1 the details of a P2P Discovery procedure, comprising Device Discovery, Service Discovery, Group Formation and Group Owner Negotiation and in § 4.1.4, the P2P Capability Bitmap exchanged during GO Negotiation.
Prosecution Insights