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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 13, 15-17, and 22 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10/028,077 ‘077’ in view of Park WO 2006073211.
Regarding claim 1 and 17, ‘077’ claim 1 claims a method comprising (lines 1-2):
communicating, by a wireless device, via a first wireless network using first periodic connection events, wherein the wireless device does not initiate any of the first periodic connection events (lines 3-8);
communicating, by the wireless device, via a second wireless network using second periodic connection events (lines 9-16); and
in response to determining a time overlap between a first connection event of the first periodic connection events and a second connection event of the second periodic connection events, performing, by the wireless device, a connection update to shift in time at least one of the second periodic connection events (lines 17-30).
‘077’ is silent on wherein the wireless device initiates each of the second periodic connection events.
Park teaches the wireless device initiates each of the connection events (abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of ‘077’ by the wireless device initiates each of the second periodic connection events, as suggested by Park. This modification would benefit the system by enabling the wireless device to initiate communication.
Regarding claim 13, 22, given claim 1 claims the first and second reference clocks have a relative drift rate, it is obvious the first and second connection intervals are different.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, incorporating the invention within a first and second Bluetooth network would have been obvious at the time of the instant invention.
Claims 1, 13, 15-17, and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10/694,359 ‘359’ in view of Park WO 2006073211.
Regarding claim 1 and 17, ‘359’ claim 1 claims a method comprising (lines 1-2):
communicating, by a wireless device, via a first wireless network using first periodic connection events, wherein the wireless device does not initiate any of the first periodic connection events (lines 3-8);
communicating, by the wireless device, via a second wireless network using second periodic connection events (lines 9-16); and
in response to determining a time overlap between a first connection event of the first periodic connection events and a second connection event of the second periodic connection events, performing, by the wireless device, a connection update to shift in time at least one of the second periodic connection events (lines 17-26).
‘359’ is silent on wherein the wireless device initiates each of the second periodic connection events.
Park teaches the wireless device initiates each of the connection events (abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of ‘359’ by the wireless device initiates each of the second periodic connection events, as suggested by Park. This modification would benefit the system by enabling the wireless device to initiate communication.
Regarding claim 13, 22, given claim 1 claims the first and second reference clocks have a relative drift rate, it is obvious the first and second connection intervals are different.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, incorporating the invention within a first and second Bluetooth network would have been obvious at the time of the instant invention.
Claims 1, 13, 15-17, and 22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11/997,575 ‘575’ in view of Park WO 2006073211.
Regarding claim 1 and 17, ‘575’ claim 1 claims a method comprising (line 1):
communicating, by a wireless device, via a first wireless network using first periodic connection events, wherein the wireless device does not initiate any of the first periodic connection events (lines 2-5);
communicating, by the wireless device, via a second wireless network using second periodic connection events (lines 6-11); and
in response to determining a time overlap between a first connection event of the first periodic connection events and a second connection event of the second periodic connection events, performing, by the wireless device, a connection update to shift in time at least one of the second periodic connection events (lines 12-22).
‘575’ is silent on wherein the wireless device initiates each of the second periodic connection events.
Park teaches the wireless device initiates each of the connection events (abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of ‘575’ by the wireless device initiates each of the second periodic connection events, as suggested by Park. This modification would benefit the system by enabling the wireless device to initiate communication.
Regarding claim 13, 22, given claim 1 claims the first and second reference clocks have a relative drift rate, it is obvious the first and second connection intervals are different.
Regarding claims 15 and 16, incorporating the invention within a first and second Bluetooth network would have been obvious at the time of the instant invention.
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.
Claims 1, 13, 15-17, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribaudo US 20070030824 in view of Park and Zakrzewski US 20110255528.
Regarding claims 1, 17, Ribaudo teaches communicating, by a wireless device, via a first wireless network using first periodic connection events, wherein the wireless device does not initiate any of the first periodic connection events (piconet, [0066], separate network interfaces for each network, mobile device 12 simultaneously connected to multiple networks, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, [0073]);
communicating, by the wireless device, via a second wireless network using second periodic connection events (piconet, [0066], separate network interfaces for each network, mobile device 12 simultaneously connected to multiple networks, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, [0073]).
Ribaudo is silent on wherein the wireless device initiates each of the second periodic connection events.
Park teaches the wireless device initiates each of the connection events (abstract).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the system of Ribaudo by the wireless device initiates each of the second periodic connection events, as suggested by Park. This modification would benefit the system by enabling the wireless device to initiate communication.
The combination is silent on in response to determining a time overlap between a first connection event of the first periodic connection events and a second connection event of the second periodic connection events, performing, by the wireless device, a connection update to shift in time at least one of the second periodic connection events.
Zakrzewski teaches in a mobile network, the clock offset between devices is determined based upon timestamp of received packets and adjusting the clock offset based upon the relative
drift rate. Specifically Zakrzewski teaches an access point sending a reference message to each of the wireless devices. Each wireless device records a timestamp that the message was received and sends the timestamp to the access point. Access point determines relative clock offsets between each of the wireless devices based on the timestamps. Subsequent reference messages are sent to determine a clock drift rate of each of the plurality of wireless devices in order to obtain accurate relative clock offsets between the wireless devices ([0008, 0092]). Note, both the applicant and Zakrzewski teach in a mobile network, the clock offset between devices is determined based upon timestamp of received packets and adjusting the clock offset based upon the relative drift rate.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary Skill in the art, to modify the system of the combination by in response to determining a time overlap between a first connection event of the first periodic connection events and a second connection event of the second periodic connection events, performing, by the wireless device, a connection update to shift in time at least one of the second periodic connection events, as suggested by Zakrzewski. This modification would benefit the system by ensuring that collisions between the two networks communicating with the mobile do not occur.
Regarding claim 13, 22, given Zakrzewski teach in a mobile network, the clock offset between devices is determined based upon timestamp of received packets and adjusting the clock offset based upon the relative drift rate, it is obvious the first and second connection intervals are different.
Regarding claim 15, the first wireless network is a Bluetooth network, and the second wireless network is a Bluetooth network (Ribaldo: [0073] A fourth option is using separate network ,interfaces for each network, so that a mobile device 12 can be simultaneously connected to multiple networks, Bluetooth).
Regarding claim 16, the limitation is obvious in view of Ribaldo: [0073] A fourth option is using separate network ,interfaces for each network, so that a mobile device 12 can be simultaneously connected to multiple networks, Bluetooth).
Allowable subject matter
Claims 2-12, 14, 18-21 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RONALD B ABELSON whose telephone number is (571)272-3165. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00-4:30.
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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached on 571-272-3795. 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.
/RONALD B ABELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2476