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 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.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2021/0058994 A1) in view of Nixon et al. (US 2004/0259533 A1), and further in view of Rencher et al. (US 2016/0021486 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses:
a non-transitory computer readable medium (fig.6 element 604 and/or 606 are memories which comprise instructions) comprising computer executable instructions that (par.[0058] describes a non-transitory medium, fig.5 and element 512 and 522), when executed by a processor (fig.5 element 510) of a mobile electronic device (fig.5 element 500 electronic device), cause the mobile device to:
connect with a recipient device over a first connection (par.[0015] which describes a primary link over a first Radio Access Technology (RAT), for dual connectivity) via a first Bluetooth transceiver (par.[0032] which describes the RAT as Bluetooth, which requires a first Bluetooth transceiver) of the mobile electronic device (fig.6 the electronic device 110) and a second connection via a second Bluetooth transceiver (par.[0016] which recites, in part, “a backup link may be used to provide redundancy for reliable transmission”, and requires a second Bluetooth transceiver to accommodate each bi-directional link);
transmit data packets to the recipient device over the first connection (par.[0026] describes the use of a primary link, wherein the primary link is used initially for transmission), wherein the second connection corresponds to a standby communication state (par.[0015] describes a backup link, wherein the backup link is used for providing reliability for the primary link, and is used as a standby, par.[0017]); and
transmit data packets to the recipient device via a combination of the first connection and second connection (par.[0018] recites, in part, “a hot standby includes simultaneously transmitting a message on a backup link together with a primary link.”).
While the disclosure of Wu teaches the use of a first and second connection wherein the second connection is a standby connection, it does not disclose:
in response to a determination that a signal quality of the first connection is below a threshold, transmit data packets to the recipient device via a combination of the first connection and second connection.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Nixon teaches:
in response to a determination that a signal quality of the first connection is below a threshold (par.[0028] which recites, in part, “Further, the resulting automatically established wireless I/O communication network may enable a self-healing function, in which a field device experiencing a failing, failed or otherwise problematic communication link”), transmit data packets to the recipient device via a combination of the first connection and second connection (par.[0028] which recites, in part, “)in which a field device experiencing a failing, failed or otherwise problematic communication link automatically establishes a new communication link or uses a redundant communication link to maintain communications integrity (e.g., signal quality, signal strength, etc.) within the I/O communication network.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the redundant communication links as discussed in Wu, with the redundant communication links as discussed in Nixon. The motivation/suggestion would have been to maintain communications integrity in the wireless communications network when a link failure or link degradation is experienced in the wireless communications network.
While the disclosure of Wu and Nixon substantially disclose the claimed subject matter and a first and a second Bluetooth transceivers the may not explicitly disclose:
wherein a Bluetooth transceiver has wider coverage area than another Bluetooth transceiver.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Rencher teaches:
wherein a Bluetooth transceiver has wider coverage area than another Bluetooth transceiver (par.[0015] see table-2 a second BT transceiver can have a wider coverage area than a first BT transceiver as different BT transceivers are capable of having different effective ranges).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Wu for providing a standby connection with the disclosure Nixon which teaches failing over utilizing a redundant connection between a first BT transceiver and a second BT transceiver, with the disclosure of Rencher which teaches that the different BT transceivers can service different coverage areas. The motivation/suggestion would have been that different BT transceivers may be utilized in different scenarios and naturally would have different coverage area/ranges to support the different requirements.
Regarding claim 2, the disclosure of Wu teaches:
further causes the mobile electronic device to establish the second connection via a second Bluetooth transceiver by transmitting identification information of the second Bluetooth transceiver via the first connection (par.[0101] which recites, in part, “determine a QoS indicator from the QoS level, the QoS indicator identifying a dual connectivity backup transmission, the dual connectivity backup transmission including a hot backup, a warm backup, or a cold backup; transceiver circuitry to: attempt to transmit the data using a first transmission mode, the first transmission mode using the first carrier and the data including the QoS indicator; and retransmit, in response to the attempt failing, the data using a second transmission mode.”).
Regarding claim 3, the disclosure of Nixon teaches:
Transmitting data packets to the recipient device via a combination of the first connection and second connection utilizing a wireless transmission filter (par.[0028] of teaches the use of redundant filters, and the par.[0052] describes a wireless noise filter to filter out unwanted noise).
Regarding claim 4, the disclosure of Nixon teaches:
determine that a signal quality of the first connection based on packet losses of data transmission (par.[0046] which recites, in part, “the wireless I/O interfaces 128-136 may detect communication drop outs (e.g., a loss or degradation of communications for at least a predetermined period of time) and flag data associated with such drop outs as questionable, bad, uncertain, etc.”).
Regarding claim 5, the disclosure of Wu teaches:
transmit data packets to the recipient device via a combination of the first connection and second connection wherein the first connection is configured to transmit a first sequence of data to the recipient device and the second connection is configured to transmit a second sequence of data to the recipient device (par.[0016] which recites, in part, “In addition to a primary link, a backup link may be used to provide redundancy for reliable transmission…….”. Because the backup link provides redundancy, it would have a separate and independent sequence of data to transmit on its link).
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses:
transmit data packets to the recipient device via a combination of the first connection and second connection on a same frequency (par.[0033] which recites, in part, “and the one of the two transmission modes may operate at a frequency below 6 GHz, such as 5.9 GHz, and the other transmission mode may operate at a frequency of 6 GHz.”).
Regarding claim 7, the disclosure of Nixon teaches:
receive from the recipient device, signal quality information corresponding to the first connection (par.[0035] which recites, in part, “More generally, the wireless enabled field devices 102-118, the wireless field device interfaces 122-126, the wireless I/O interfaces 128-136 and the controller 120 can assess the characteristics and/or quality of their local available communication channels, paths or links and cooperate to automatically form a robust wireless I/O communication network.” Which describes the recipient devices and the field devices providing feedback to determine the signal quality. Par.[0055] which recites, in part, “packet-based transmission protocols may be used to enable the field devices 204 and 206 to locally broadcast their process control information, diagnostic information, etc. to, for example, more than one other wireless field device interface, wireless I/O interface and other wireless enabled field devices.”).
Claim(s) 9-11 and 28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2021/0058994 A1) in view of Nixon et al. (US 2004/0259533 A1), in view of Parron et al. (US 2016/0285746 A1), and further in view of Rencher et al. (US 2016/0021486 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Wu discloses:
a mobile electronic device comprising:
a first wireless communication module (par.[0032] which describes the RAT as Bluetooth, which requires a first Bluetooth transceiver) and a second wireless communication module (par.[0016] which recites, in part, “a backup link may be used to provide redundancy for reliable transmission”, and requires a second Bluetooth transceiver to accommodate each bi-directional link) wherein the first wireless communciation module transmits data packets according to a frequency channel configuration and wherein the second wireless communication module transmits data packets according to the frequency channel configuration (par.[0041] and fig.6 element 620)
a control for managing data packet transmission from the first wireless communication module and second wireless communication module to recipient devices based on transmission configuration (par.[0015 – 0016] the techniques requiring some control mechanism)
a processor (fig.6 element 602 depicts a processor):
connect with a recipient device over a first connection via the first wireless communication module and a second connection via a second wireless communication module (par.[0015] describes the dual connectivity, which would utilize different modules to transmit over different links. Fig.2 Physical Layer 208 and 210 can be utilized to provide a dual connectivity)
transmit data packets to the recipient device over the first connection (par.[0026] describes the use of a primary link, wherein the primary link is used initially for transmission), wherein the second connection corresponds to a standby communication state (par.[0015] describes a backup link, wherein the backup link is used for providing reliability for the primary link, and is used as a standby, par.[0017]); and
transmit data packets to the recipient device via a combination of the first connection and second connection (par.[0018] recites, in part, “a hot standby includes simultaneously transmitting a message on a backup link together with a primary link.”).
While the disclosure of Wu teaches the use of a first and second connection wherein the second connection is a standby connection, it does not disclose:
in response to a determination that a signal quality of the first connection is below a threshold, transmit data packets to the recipient device via a combination of the first connection and second connection.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Nixon teaches:
in response to a determination that a signal quality of the first connection is below a threshold (par.[0028] which recites, in part, “Further, the resulting automatically established wireless I/O communication network may enable a self-healing function, in which a field device experiencing a failing, failed or otherwise problematic communication link”), transmit data packets to the recipient device via a combination of the first connection and second connection (par.[0028] which recites, in part, “)in which a field device experiencing a failing, failed or otherwise problematic communication link automatically establishes a new communication link or uses a redundant communication link to maintain communications integrity (e.g., signal quality, signal strength, etc.) within the I/O communication network.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the redundant communication links as discussed in Wu, with the redundant communication links as discussed in Nixon. The motivation/suggestion would have been to maintain communications integrity in the wireless communications network when a link failure or link degradation is experienced in the wireless communications network.
While each of Wu and Nixon substantially disclose the claimed subject matter, they may not disclose:
transmit data packets in sequential order to the recipient device via combination of the first connection and second connection (par.[0060] which recites, in part, “such a multi-link sequence number enables in-sequence delivery of data transmitted over different links of an aggregated link”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine disclosures Wu and Nixon for redundant and robust transmissions with the disclosure of Parron. The motivation/suggestion would have been to increase throughput and reliability of a transmission.
While the disclosure of Wu and Nixon substantially disclose the claimed subject matter and a first and a second Bluetooth transceivers the may not explicitly disclose:
wherein a Bluetooth transceiver has wider coverage area than another Bluetooth transceiver.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Rencher teaches:
wherein a Bluetooth transceiver has wider coverage area than another Bluetooth transceiver (par.[0015] see table-2 a second BT transceiver can have a wider coverage area than a first BT transceiver as different BT transceivers are capable of having different effective ranges).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Wu for providing a standby connection with the disclosure Nixon which teaches failing over utilizing a redundant connection between a first BT transceiver and a second BT transceiver, and the sequential ordering as discussed in Parron, with the disclosure of Rencher which teaches that the different BT transceivers can service different coverage areas. The motivation/suggestion would have been that different BT transceivers may be utilized in different scenarios and naturally would have different coverage area/ranges to support the different requirements.
Regarding claim 10, the disclosure of Wu teaches:
wherein the processor transmits double data packets via the first connection and second connection (par.[0018] which recites, in part, “In an example, a hot standby includes simultaneously transmitting a message on a backup link together with a primary link.”).
Regarding claim 11, the disclosure of Wu teaches:
wherein the processor is further to establish the second connection based on receiving identification information of the second wireless communication module via the first connection. (par.[0101] which recites, in part, “determine a QoS indicator from the QoS level, the QoS indicator identifying a dual connectivity backup transmission, the dual connectivity backup transmission including a hot backup, a warm backup, or a cold backup; transceiver circuitry to: attempt to transmit the data using a first transmission mode, the first transmission mode using the first carrier and the data including the QoS indicator; and retransmit, in response to the attempt failing, the data using a second transmission mode.”).
Regarding claim 28, Rencher discloses:
wherein the range of the coverage of the second wireless communication module relative to the first wireless communication module is based on at least one of an operating frequency, a configured transmission power, a physical layer configuration, or a signal gain of the second wireless communication module (par.[0015] see table-2 a second BT transceiver can have a wider coverage area than a first BT transceiver as different BT transceivers are capable of having different effective ranges, based on transmission power).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2021/0058994 A1) in view of Nixon et al. (US 2004/0259533 A1), Parron et al. (US 2016/0285746 A1), in view of Cariou et al. (US 2017/0311204 A1).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Wu, Nixon, and Parron disclose the independent claim 9, but may not disclose:
wherein the first wireless communication module is configured on a same frequency channel as the second wireless communication module.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Cariou teaches:
wherein the first wireless communication module is configured on a same frequency channel as the second wireless communication module (par.[0060] which recites, in part, “the aggregated link may be configurable for channels in a same frequency band”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application for a skilled person to try the combination of Wu, Nixon, and Parron, with the disclosure Cariou. The motivation/suggestion would have been that a skilled person would know that communications channels which are aggregated together can be in a same frequency channel in order to provide a robust communications medium.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US 2021/0058994 A1) in view of Nixon et al. (US 2004/0259533 A1), in view of Parron et al. (US 2016/0285746 A1), and further in view of Rencher et al. (US 2016/0021486 A1), and further in view of Avadhanam et al. (US 12,207,079 B2).
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Wu, Nixon, Parron, and Rencher disclose the claim 9, but may not disclose:
Wherein the signal quality of the first connection is determined based on at least one of a signal-to-noise ratio, a bit error rate, or a packet error rate.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Avadhanam teaches:
wherein the signal quality of the first connection is determined based on at least one of a signal-to-noise ratio, a bit error rate, or a packet error rate (col.11 lines 31-40 and claim 5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Wu, Nixon, Parron, Rencher, with the signal quality measurement as discussed in Avadhanam. The motivation/suggestion would have been that the use of SNR, Bit Error Rates, or Packet Error Rates, are well-known in the art as techniques that can be utilized to determine the quality of link. Applying this technique to the combination of references allows for determining when a link quality is deteriorated, and further provides a mechanism for enacting the redundancy function as discussed in the other references, such that packets/data may still be delivered in the event of a deteriorated link.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13-14, 21-25, and 27 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Morris et al. (US 2019/0327778 A1) “Reliable Wireless Communication with a Source Using Relayed Communication”
Yu et al. (US 2025/0386218 A1) “Redundant Links for Reliable Communication”
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights