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
Applicant's Amendment filed April 27, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 8, 11, 14, 15, and 17 are amended. Claims 1–20 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-20 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.
Applicant’s arguments, pages 11–13, argue that Lee’s native Bluetooth advertisements and Qi ’505’s Bluetooth-triggered Wi-Fi discovery do not establish the amended common advertisement packet format. Those passages do not, by themselves, establish that limitation. The present grounds address the amended format through the additional teachings identified below.
Applicant also argues that Qi ’505 teaches away because Bluetooth and Wi-Fi use different decoding processes. The proposed combination retains each transport’s native framing and decoding and carries a shared advertisement structure within those frames. Qi ’505’s discussion of incompatible native frames therefore does not establish that the proposed shared inner structure would be inoperable. The specification explicitly permits adaptation without changing either wireless standard ([0030], [0048]). The grounds below identify the modifications and resulting operation under that interpretation.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is 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 inventor regards as the invention. Claim 11 recites that the selected antenna “has higher spectral content in a direction of an expected advertisement packet.” It is unclear what antenna or received-signal characteristic constitutes “spectral content” in this limitation. A comparison of directional antenna gain at the operating frequency is different from a comparison of received spectral power or of the frequency content admitted by an antenna. These readings impose different conditions on the selected antenna and do not necessarily identify the same antenna.
Specification [0054] repeats the phrase and associates antenna selection with an expected use case and avoidance of switching, but does not identify which of these characteristics is compared or how the directional comparison is determined. Even if the comparison is understood to be against the other available antennas, the measured characteristic remains unclear. The expected packet direction identifies a direction, and avoiding switching identifies a result; neither resolves what constitutes higher spectral content. Therefore, the limitation does not clearly distinguish antenna configurations within the claim from configurations outside it. Clarification of the characteristic and comparison, supported by the original disclosure, or an explanation of the recognized technical meaning is required. The rejection is not based merely on the relative word “higher.”
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 6, 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al. (US 2016/0278006 A1), hereafter Lee, in view of Linsky et al. (US 2023/0056166 A1) hereafter Linsky.
Regarding Claim 1:
Claim broadest reasonable interpretation: The Examiner interprets “social channel” as a channel used for peer discovery leading to establishment of the advertised service. The Examiner interprets “common advertisement packet format” as a shared advertisement-message structure carried within Bluetooth-specific or Wi-Fi-specific framing, consistent with Specification [0030] (“an advertisement packet 200 (ADV) that can be adapted for use over both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi radios without requiring any changes to the Bluetooth or Wi-Fi standards”) and [0048] (“both technologies have their own discovery procedures”). “Discovered by both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi type scanners” requires reception and processing of that shared structure through the respective discovery interfaces.
Lee teaches a device, comprising: a first radio associated with a first wireless interface; a second radio associated with a second wireless interface; and at least one processor coupled to the first radio and the second radio, wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the device to: ([0201], “communication units 150 and 250, control units (processors 160 and 260)”; [0202], “functionally connected”; [0218], “WLAN (Wireless LAN) (Wi-Fi)”; [0220], “Bluetooth”; ¶[0222], processor control; Fig. 2).
scan the first wireless interface for advertisement messages ([0128], “a scanning procedure to listen to non-directional broadcast of user data from advertising devices which use an advertising physical channel”; [0622], “a scanner starts to scan (S2701), and performs scanning to receive an advertising message (S2702)”).
receive an advertisement message from a remote station, the advertisement message comprising information identifying a service available via the second radio ([0434], “including network information and service information (for example, service IDs)”; [0438], reception of the BLE advertisement; [0439]–[0445], Wi-Fi Direct activation and service communication). The claimed device is the receiving peer, and the advertising source is the remote station. Lee [0219] further provides the Wi-Fi P2P service connection (“inter-device streaming service may be provided”).
Lee does not explicitly teach identifying a social channel on the second wireless interface to establish the service in the claimed advertisement ([0046] "network information such as SSID... or channel information may be included"; Fig. 11 illustrating channel/network parameters used for connection establishment), thereby teaching that the advertisement message identifies channel or network information corresponding to the second wireless interface used to establish the service.
Lee does not teach wherein the advertisement message is in a common advertisement packet format that can be sent by either a Bluetooth radio or a Wi-Fi radio and that can be discovered by both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi type scanners.
Linsky teaches wherein the advertisement message is in a common advertisement packet format that can be sent by either a Bluetooth radio or a Wi-Fi radio and that can be discovered by both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi type scanners ([0181] (“The header element 821 may indicate a format of the message 820.”)), transport-specific packetization ([0163]), and transmission across both radio transports ([0187] (“data 823 may be sent via a Bluetooth radio transport layer and a Wi-Fi radio transport layer, in which case the salt element 825 may be the same in both the message received via the Bluetooth radio transport layer and the Wi-Fi radio transport layer)). further teaches receiving broadcasts through the disclosed BLE and Wi-Fi transports ([0208] (“monitoring or listening for and receiving broadcast messages on one or more transport layers”)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Linsky’s cross-transport formatting and recovery techniques to Lee’s advertisement, to simplify the discovery message through various interfaces.
Regarding Claim 6: Lee and Linsky teach the device of claim 1.
Lee further teaches that the service is associated with an application running on the device: [0260] (“a service ID, an application ID, or cloud service provider information”); [0261] (“The service may be a facebook, dropbox, Web services, picture, file sharing, message, and the like”).
Regarding Claim 7: Lee and Linsky teach the device of claim 1.
Lee further teaches exchange discovery messages with the remote station on the social channel on the second wireless interface (Fig. 4, the first device establishes a new network connection with the second device, and exchanges data with the second device via the connected network (or transmits and receives data to and from the second device) (S405) [0250]-[0264]).
Regarding Claim 10: Lee and Linsky teach the device of claim 1.
Lee further teaches that wherein one wireless interface is a Bluetooth interface and another wireless interface is a Wi-Fi interface ([0215] “communication units… include one or more modules enabling wireless communication”, [0220] “Bluetooth… may be used” [0218] “WLAN (Wi-Fi)… may be used”), and further explicitly teaches that the first network is Bluetooth and the second network is a different wireless network such as Wi-Fi ([0014] “the first network may be Bluetooth, and the second network may be a wireless network other than Bluetooth”), as well as communication using the first and second networks ([0013] “transmitting… data… via the second network”; Fig. 13), thereby teaching a device having a Bluetooth interface and a Wi-Fi interface operating for service discovery and communication as claimed.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Linsky, and further in view of Iyer et al. (US 2011/0122804 A1) hereafter Iyer.
Regarding Claim 2: Lee and Linsky teaches the device of claim 1.
Claim broadest reasonable interpretation: The interpretations for claim 1 are incorporated herein. The organization identifier must define the use-case context associated with the receiving device’s low-power mode, and the channel-information field must identify the P2P discovery channel for that same context.
Lee further teaches a channel information field that identifies the social channel as a Social Discovery Channel for peer-to-peer discovery ([0255] (“The network information is information indicating a network interface supported by a device, which may be Wi-Fi (for example, SSID or channel information), Wi-Fi Direct (Group ID)”); [0219] (“the device may be connected to another device in a Wi-Fi peer-to-peer (P2P) manner”); and [0441] (“performs a Wi-Fi direct device discovery procedure with the selected remote device (sink device) using Wi-Fi direct communication”).
Lee and Linsky do not explicitly teach wherein the service is associated with a low power mode of the device” and “an organization identifier field that defines an underlying use-case context associated with the low power mode.
Iyer teaches wherein the service is associated with a low power mode of the device” and “an organization identifier field that defines an underlying use-case context associated with the low power mode by disclosing an advertised battery-saving capability associated with low-power operation: ([0039] (“advertise battery-boost capability”; “disable DTIM processing”); ([0041] (“increase the time period between wake-up operations”); and claim 6 (“an Organizationally Unique Identifier (OUI) including one or more bits to identify that the wireless device supports the battery saving mode”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Iyer’s battery-saving-mode identifier to Lee and Linsky, thereby providing the recited Contextual Low Power Advertisement (CLPA) message identifying the low-power use-case context and its associated P2P discovery channel, while reducing unnecessary wake-up operations.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Linsky in view of Virani et al. (US 2019/0273777 A1), hereinafter Virani.
Regarding Claim 3: Lee and Linsky disclose the limitations of Claim 1.
Lee further teaches a device performing communication and service discovery between devices using wireless communication ([0013] “service information indicating a service desired to be shared”; [0014] “the first network may be Bluetooth, and the second network may be a wireless network other than Bluetooth”; [0046] “advertising message may include… service information”), thereby teaching communication operations between devices via wireless interfaces.
Lee and Linsky do not explicitly disclose that the service is associated with the location of the device.
Virani teaches determining a location of a wireless device in a wireless network ([0001] “discovering… a distance between the first wireless device and… second wireless device”; [0016] “determine a match… based on… distance between the first wireless device and… second wireless device”; Fig. 4 “determine a location of the first wireless device in the wireless mesh network”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify Lee and Linsky by the teaching of Virani to execute the service based on the location of the device (Virani [0001]; [0016]; Fig. 4]).
Regarding Claim 4: Lee and Linsky and Virani disclose the limitations of Claim 3.
Lee and Linsky do not explicitly disclose that the location is a distance between the device and the remote station.
Virani teaches determining a distance between wireless devices in proximity (see Abstract “a distance between the first wireless device and at least one second wireless device in proximity”; Fig. 3A “determine a distance between a first wireless device and at least one second wireless device in proximity”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Lee and Linsky by the teaching of Virani to include that the location is a distance between the device and the remote station to determine service based on a distance between wireless devices “in proximity” (Virani Abstract; [0001]).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Linsky in view of Haverinen et al. (US 10462633 B2), hereinafter Haverinen.
Regarding Claim 5: Lee and Linsky teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Lee and Linsky do not explicitly teach that the service is associated with motion of the device.
Haverinen teaches detecting motion of a device based on wireless signals (see Abstract “detecting motion based on wireless signals”; col. 1, lines discussing “detect motion based on the determined difference” ; Fig. 7A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee and Linsky by the teaching of Haverinen to detect motion of a device based on wireless signals without using dedicated motion sensors (Haverinen, col. 3).
Claims 8-9 and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Linsky in view of Qi et al. (US 2021/0185505 A1), hereinafter Qi.
Regarding Claim 8: Lee and Linsky teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Claim broadest reasonable interpretation: Consistent with Specification [0033] and [0041], the Examiner interprets “underlying use-case context” to encompass an application or service context. The organization identifier field identifies that context, and the channel information field identifies the peer-to-peer discovery channel associated with the same context. The recited “Contextual Low Power Advertisement (CLPA) message” is evaluated according to its claimed fields and functions and does not require the prior art to use the term “CLPA.”
Lee and Linsky do not explicitly teach wherein the advertisement message is a Contextual Low Power Advertisement (CLPA) message that includes an organization identifier field that defines an underlying use-case context and a channel information field that identifies the social channel as a Social Discovery Channel for peer-to-peer discovery for the underlying use-case context.
Qi teaches an organization identifier field that defines an underlying use-case context: ([0025] (“an organization identifier field of a BLE TDS AD packet may indicate a Bluetooth organization/service or a Wi-Fi organization/service, such as a Wi-Fi service discovery process”). Under the stated interpretation, the identified organization/service or service-discovery process corresponds to the claimed underlying use-case context. further teaches a channel information field associated with discovery of that service: ([0026] (“The channel information field may include indications of an operating class and channel number for Wi-Fi services”); and [0031] (“associated types of data links (e.g., NAN, Wi-Fi P2P, Wi-Fi infrastructure, and other types of Wi-Fi) for the services”). And peer-to-peer interface activation followed by Wi-Fi service discovery: ([0047] (“a Wi-Fi interface such as NAN, peer-to-peer, or any other interface between two devices”). ([0050] further teaches that the same advertisement structure includes an “organization identifier (ID) field 406” and “channel information 420”, and that the advertisement enables determination of an organization and transport associated with a supported service. Thus, Qi ’505 provides the organization identifier and channel information in the same low-power service-discovery advertisement.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Qi ’505’s organization/service identifier and P2P channel information to the teaching Lee and Linsky, thereby identifying the underlying use-case context and its associated Social Discovery Channel for peer-to-peer discovery while reducing unnecessary channel scanning.
Regarding Claim 9: Lee and Linsky and Qi disclose the limitations of Claim 8.
Lee further teaches communication using Bluetooth interface or over a Wi-Fi interface ( [0014] “the first network may be Bluetooth, and the second network may be a wireless network other than Bluetooth”; [0046] “the connection service may represent… LTE, BLE, Wi-Fi…”; Fig. 13 illustrating interaction between devices across wireless communication interfaces), thereby teaching multi-interface wireless communication between devices.
Regarding Claim 12: Lee and Linsky disclose the limitations of Claim 1.
Lee further teaches performing service discovery and communication using multiple wireless interfaces ([0013] “service information indicating a service desired to be shared”; [0046] “advertising message may include… service information”; [0014] “the first network may be Bluetooth, and the second network may be a wireless network other than Bluetooth”), thereby teaching communication operations via multiple wireless radios.
Lee and Linsky do not explicitly disclose placing the second radio in an off or standby state while scanning the first wireless interface for advertisement messages using the first radio; and place the second radio in an on state after the social channel is identified.
Qi teaches placing the second radio in an off or standby state… and place the second radio in an on state after the social channel is identified ([0015] “devices may use active Bluetooth radios to send and receive messages which may be used to activate Wi-Fi radios for service discovery”; [0032] “power-efficient operation through control of wireless interface activity”), thereby teaching activating a higher power radio after identification of a communication opportunity while controlling radio activity for power efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee and Linsky by the teaching of Qi, to reduce power consumption by keeping a higher power radio inactive until needed.
Regarding Claim 13: Lee and Linsky teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Lee and Linsky do not explicitly disclose wherein the device is an Information Handling System (IHS), an access point, a wireless docking station, an infrastructure device, or a collaboration bar.
Qi teaches wherein the device is an Information Handling System (IHS), an access point, a wireless docking station, an infrastructure device, or a collaboration bar ([0093] “An access point may also be referred to as an access node, a base station… an access terminal may also be called… a wireless communication device” thereby teaching an access point and a wireless communication device corresponding to the claimed device types.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify Lee and Linsky by the teaching of Qi, to provide details about the access point (Qi [0093]).
Regarding Claim 14: Lee and Linsky teach the device of claim 1.
Claim broadest reasonable interpretation: Consistent with Specification [0053], the Examiner interprets “underlying discovery context” to encompass service, link, and operation information obtained from the advertisement and used to determine the subsequent discovery operation. “Software service” encompasses software-executed processing that parses the advertisement to obtain that information. An “infrastructure device” encompasses an access point.
Lee and Linsky do not explicitly teach wherein the advertisement message is a Contextual Low Power Advertisement (CLPA) message, wherein a Bluetooth radio is used to discover an infrastructure device, wherein a software service on the device parses the CLPA message to determine an underlying discovery context, and wherein a Wi-Fi Direct discovery is triggered by the underlying discovery context in the advertisement message after the infrastructure device is discovered.
Qi teaches the additional limitations by disclosing a BLE TDS transport discovery advertisement packet in which the limited number of bytes may allow for low-power operations ([0017]; an access point as an exemplary device [0037]; and Bluetooth-enabled provider and seeker devices exchanging a BLE TDS discovery packet, determining a service match, resolving the provider’s BLE address, activating a Wi-Fi interface such as NAN, peer-to-peer, and subsequently performing Wi-Fi service discovery [0047]. Qi further teaches that the receiving device decodes the advertisement to identify a Wi-Fi service, Wi-Fi link, and Wi-Fi operation ([0051], with the disclosed operations implemented by “instructions 824 (e.g., software)” and “fully or partially in software and/or firmware” [0082], [0087], and explicitly teaches activating “a Wi-Fi Direct interface in response to identifying the second Bluetooth data packet” [0105]. Under the stated interpretation, these teachings provide the recited Contextual Low Power Advertisement (CLPA) message, Bluetooth discovery of the infrastructure device, software parsing to determine the underlying discovery context, and Wi-Fi Direct discovery triggered by that context after the infrastructure device is discovered).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Qi ’505’s low-power Bluetooth discovery and context-based Wi-Fi Direct discovery to the teaching of Lee and Linsky, to determine the service context before initiating Wi-Fi Direct discovery, thereby reducing unnecessary Wi-Fi activity.
Regarding Claim 15:
Claim broadest reasonable interpretation: The Examiner interprets “subscription to the service” as a service-specific request or acceptance to use the advertised service. The interpretation of “common advertisement packet format” stated above for claim 1 is incorporated herein.
Lee teaches an apparatus, comprising: one or more processors; and one or more computer-readable storage media having computer-executable instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to” ([0201], “communication units 150 and 250, control units (processors 160 and 260)”; [0211], “The memories 130 and 230 may store a program for operating the control units 160 and 260”). Further teaches advertise a service on a first wireless interface, wherein the service is provided via a second wireless interface ([0434], “broadcasts a BLE advertising message including network information and service information (for example, service IDs)”; [0439], “activates a network interface (Wi-Fi direct)”; [0445], “transmits a stream of the selected media to the sink device”).
receive response information via the first wireless interface” and “provide instructions to establish a data path to support the service via the second wireless interface ([0259], the second device transmits a response including network, user, and service information; [0262], “transmits a network connection request message”; [0264], “establishes a new network connection with the second device, and exchanges data with the second device via the connected network”).
Lee does not explicitly teach wherein the second wireless interface is a higher power interface than the first wireless interface or wherein the response information indicates a subscription to the service from a wireless station; wherein the service is advertised by a message in a common advertisement packet format that can be sent by either a Bluetooth radio or a Wi-Fi radio and that can be discovered by both Bluetooth and Wi-Fi type scanners.
Linsky teaches the recited common advertisement packet format by disclosing data packetized for sending over one or more radio transport layers and that the same data elements and/or data element sets may be sent as duplicate messages over two or more different transport layers ([0163]–[0165]). Linsky further teaches that “data 823 may be sent via a Bluetooth radio transport layer and a Wi-Fi radio transport layer” ([0187]), and that a receiving processor may perform “monitoring or listening for and receiving broadcast messages on one or more transport layers” and “reconstitute the data elements of the data set” ([0208], [0213]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Linsky’s cross-transport formatting and recovery techniques to Lee’s service advertisement so the same advertisement-message structure can be transmitted and discovered through either Bluetooth or Wi-Fi, to simplify the discovery message through various interfaces.
Lee and Linsky do not explicitly teach wherein the second wireless interface is a higher power interface than the first wireless interface or wherein the response information indicates a subscription to the service from a wireless station;
Qi teaches a power-efficient Bluetooth-to-Wi-Fi arrangement by disclosing that Bluetooth may trigger Wi-Fi in a more power-efficient manner than the use of existing Wi-Fi frames and that to save power and time, devices may use active Bluetooth radios … to activate Wi-Fi radios for service discovery ([0015]). Qi ’505 further teaches a service-specific subscription/request through a “subscribe” operation ([0019]) and a “seeker connect request 314 … indicating the matched service and data link” ([0047]). Under the stated interpretation, the service-specific subscribe/connect request corresponds to the claimed “subscription to the service).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Qi Bluetooth-triggered Wi-Fi service procedure to the teaching of Lee and Linsky, so the lower-power discovery interface receives the service request before activation of the higher-power service interface, thereby reducing power consumption during service discovery.
Regarding Claim 16: Lee and Linsky and Qi disclose the limitations of Claim 15.
Lee further teaches establishing communication and connection between devices based on received advertising or discovery information (see paragraph [0219] describing establishing a connection between devices based on received information; paragraph [0471] “select a specific service URI… on the basis of the received advertising message”), thereby teaching connection establishment between devices following service discovery.
Lee and Linsky do not explicitly disclose a peer-to-peer connection on a second wireless interface using coordinated multi-interface operation.
Qi teaches a peer-to-peer connection on a second wireless interface using coordinated multi-interface operation (see paragraph [0015] “devices may use active Bluetooth radios to send and receive messages which may be used to activate Wi-Fi radios for service discovery”; paragraph [0032] describing selective activation of wireless interfaces), thereby teaching activating a Wi-Fi radio to enable direct communication between devices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee and Linsky to include establish a peer-to-peer connection on the second wireless interface as taught by Qi, because Qi teaches activating a Wi-Fi radio based on Bluetooth communication to enable subsequent communication over the Wi-Fi interface (Qi [0015]).
Regarding Claim 17: Lee and Linsky and Qi teach the apparatus of claim 15, where Linsky teaches the inherited common advertisement packet format limitation of claim 15 for the same reasons set forth above with respect to claim 15, including packetization over multiple radio transport layers ([0163]), transmission over Bluetooth and Wi-Fi radio transport layers ([0187]), reception over one or more transport layers ([0208]), and recovery of the common data elements ([0213]).
Claim broadest reasonable interpretation: Consistent with Specification [0033] and [0041], the Examiner interprets “underlying use-case context” to encompass an application or service context. The organization identifier field identifies that context, and the channel information field identifies the peer-to-peer discovery channel associated with the same context. The recited “Contextual Low Power Advertisement (CLPA) message” is evaluated according to its claimed fields and functions and does not require the prior art to use the term “CLPA.”
Lee and Linsky do not explicitly teach wherein the service is advertised by a Contextual Low Power Advertisement (CLPA) message that includes an organization identifier field that defines an underlying use-case context and a channel information field that identifies a Social Discovery Channel for peer-to-peer discovery for the underlying use-case context.
Qi teaches “an organization identifier field that defines an underlying use-case context” by disclosing ([0025] that “an organization identifier field of a BLE TDS AD packet may indicate a Bluetooth organization/service or a Wi-Fi organization/service, such as a Wi-Fi service discovery process.”) further teaches “a channel information field” by disclosing ([0026] that “The channel information field may include indications of an operating class and channel number for Wi-Fi services,” and teaches that the service discovery request identifies Wi-Fi service names and “associated types of data links (e.g., NAN, Wi-Fi P2P, Wi-Fi infrastructure, and other types of Wi-Fi) for the services” ([0031]). Qi ’505 further teaches activation of “a Wi-Fi interface such as NAN, peer-to-peer” followed by Wi-Fi service discovery ([0047]). Under the stated interpretation, the identified organization/service corresponds to the underlying use-case context and the associated P2P channel information corresponds to the Social Discovery Channel for that context.
Qi further teaches that the advertisement structure includes an “organization identifier (ID) field 406” and “channel information 420,” and identifies an organization and transport “associated with a supported service” ([0050]). Thus, the organization identifier and associated P2P discovery-channel information are provided in the same advertisement message.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include Qi ’505’s service-context identifier and associated P2P channel information in the teaching Lee and Linsky, so the receiving station can identify the underlying use-case context and its Social Discovery Channel for peer-to-peer discovery.
Regarding Claim 18: Lee and Linsky and Qi disclose the limitations of Claim 15.
Lee further teaches performing communication and service discovery using multiple wireless interfaces ([0014] “the first network may be Bluetooth, and the second network may be a wireless network other than Bluetooth”; [0046] “the connection service may represent… LTE, BLE, Wi-Fi…”), thereby teaching communication operations using multiple wireless radios.
Lee and Linsky do not explicitly disclose placing a radio for the second wireless interface in an off or standby state while advertising the service; and placing the radio in an on state when the response information indicates a subscription to the service.
Qi teaches placing a radio for the second wireless interface in an off or standby state while advertising the service; and placing the radio in an on state when the response information indicates a subscription to the service ([0032] describing selective activation of wireless interfaces; [0015] “devices may use active Bluetooth radios… to activate Wi-Fi radios for service discovery”), thereby teaching activating a Wi-Fi radio based on Bluetooth communication while controlling wireless interface activity for power efficiency.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the teaching of Qi to the teaching of Lee and Linsky, because this enhances power-efficient operation (Qi [0015]; [0032]).
Regarding Claim 19: Lee and Linsky and Qi disclose the limitations of Claim 15.
Lee further teaches a device performing communication and service discovery between devices via multiple wireless interfaces ([0013] “service information indicating a service desired to be shared”; [0046] “advertising message may include… service information”), thereby teaching service-based interaction between devices.
Lee and Linsky do not explicitly disclose that the device corresponds to a specific communication device type such as an access point, wireless docking station, infrastructure device, or collaboration bar.
Qi teaches the device corresponds to a specific communication device type such as an access point, wireless docking station, infrastructure device, or collaboration bar ([0093] “An access point may also be referred to as an access node, a base station… an access terminal may also be called… a wireless communication device” thereby teaching an access point and a wireless communication device corresponding to the device types.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art at the time of the invention to modify Lee and Linsky in view of Qi to provide details about the access point (Qi [0093]).
Regarding Claim 20: Lee and Linsky and Qi disclose the limitations of Claim 15.
Lee further teaches a device performing service discovery and communication between devices via multiple wireless interfaces ([0013] “service information indicating a service desired to be shared”; [0046] “advertising message may include… service information”), thereby teaching service-based communication between devices.
Lee and Linsky do not explicitly disclose that the service is associated with contextual conditions including a low power mode, a location of the wireless station, a distance to the wireless station, motion of the wireless station or the apparatus, or an application running on the wireless station.
Qi teaches the service is associated with contextual conditions including a low power mode, a location of the wireless station, a distance to the wireless station, motion of the wireless station or the apparatus, or an application running on the wireless station (see paragraph [0014] “extremely low power solutions… facilitate wireless communications… in a power efficient manner”; …).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify Lee and Linsky in view of Qi to include wherein the service is associated with one or more of: a low power mode; a location of the wireless station; motion of the wireless station or the apparatus; or an application running on the wireless station (Qi [0014]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee and Linsky in view of Wietfeldt et al. (US 2011/0250926 A1), hereinafter Wietfeldt.
Regarding Claim 11: Lee and Linsky teach the limitations of Claim 1.
Lee further teaches a device performing wireless communication via one or more wireless interfaces ([0028] “a communication unit configured to transmit and receive a signal… wirelessly”; [0030] “information… are shared between devices using Bluetooth”), thereby teaching wireless communication using antenna-based transmission and reception.
Lee and Linsky do not explicitly disclose selecting one antenna from among a plurality of antennas for performing scanning operations on the first wireless interface.
Wietfeldt teaches selecting one antenna from among a plurality of antennas (see paragraph [0008] “at least one antenna may be selected… from among a plurality of antennas”; paragraph [0009] “antenna selection may be performed dynamically”), thereby teaching selecting a particular antenna from a plurality of antennas for wireless communication operations.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Lee and Linsky by the teaching of Wietfeldt to include selecting one antenna from among a plurality of antennas for performing enhancing scanning/communication operations on the first wireless interface.
Conclusion
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 HASAN CHEEMA whose telephone number is (571)272-8722. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at 571) 270-0422. 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.
/H.A.C./Examiner, Art Unit 2429
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2429
