DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 2, 5, and 14 are canceled.
Status of Claims
2. This Office Action is in response to the application filed on 07/07/2026. Claims 1, 3-4, 6-13, and 15-20 are presently pending and are presented for examination.
3. 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 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.
Response to Arguments
4. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 3-4, 6-13, and 15-20 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 remarked that essential steps are not necessary because each claim focuses on what occurs “during each connection interval of a measurement period,” in which, in one embodiment (as described with respect to e.g., FIGs. 9 and 12), a system may monitor active link (e.g. blocks 354, 454) to determine when to initiate a measurement period (e.g. blocks 356, 456). However, these are only examples or embodiments (see, e.g., paragraphs 19, 28, 31, which makes clear that the drawings and descriptions are merely embodiments) and are not required for each and every embodiment. That is, it does not matter how the measurement period is initiated, so long as "during each connection interval of a measurement period" the method includes the various elements listed in each of claims 1, 4, 13, and 15.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claims 1 and 4 are method claims. In a method claim every limitation (steps) and their dependency is important to be distinguished from a prior art method. If the focus of claims 1 and 4 is on the steps happening “during each connection interval of measurement period”, then prior limitations to the are not necessary. In addition, if the focus of claim is on the steps following the “during each connection interval of a measurement period”, then each step must be followed by a step to narrow the previous step that depends on. Examiner believes based on applicant remarks, the steps of “during each connection interval of a measurement period” are broadly transmitting only one data packet and measuring the quality of received one or more packets-as such it is not clear what are the features the claimed invention.
Applicant argued that is, it does not matter how the measurement period is initiated, so long as "during each connection interval of a measurement period" the method includes the various elements listed in each of claims 1, 4, 13, and 15.
However, later claims that during each connection interval of the measurement period, only one data packet is transmitted via the first controller (of the central device) and two data packets are received via a second controller (also of the central device).
Therefore, it is important which device transmitted the only data packet-the missing steps. It is also not clear how the two data packets are received via a second controller (also of the central device), wherein the first controller was active not the second controller. The limitations following the “during each connection interval of a measurement period:” are reproduce here to clarify their dependencies.
Step 1-transmitting only one data packet via the first controller;
Step 2-determining a first received signal quality from a data packet received via
the first controller;
Step 3-receiving two data packets via a second controller of the plurality of
controllers; and
Step 4-determining a second received signal quality from the second of the two
received data packets, wherein the second of the two data packets received at the second controller is transmitted by the second wireless communication device.
Step 1- it is not clear which central device or peripheral device transmit only one data packet. At first applicant argued that it is not important whether central device or peripheral device transmitted the only data packet. But later on, in the remarks applicant confirmed that it is the central device that transmitted the only one data packet.
Step 2 does not limit the step 1. The determining a first received signal quality from a data packet received via the first controller is an independent limitation that can be measured without any dependency to its prior limitation step 1. However, it is well known that in a test packet (e.g., ping or ICMP) can be initiated between a two device to examine the continuity and channel quality between the two devices.
Step 3-receiving two data packets via a second controller of the plurality of
controllers does not limit step 2. Step 3: receiving two data packets via a second controller of the plurality of controllers can be achieved independent of step 2 limitation.
Step 4-determining a second received signal quality from the second of the two
received data packets, wherein the second of the two data packets received at the second controller is transmitted by the second wireless communication device after under lined amendments limits step 3. However, the above steps do not identify inventive features of claimed invention.
Examiner believes applicant’s claim 1 is directed to the Fig. 4 which is reproduced in the following:
PNG
media_image1.png
826
746
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It is clear that only link 222 is active for bi-direction (full-f-duplex) or half-duplex. The device 202 is central device and device 210 is peripheral device. Fig. 9 flowchart shows the handover active link from active to candidate controller- a potential of steps for Fig. 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
5. 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.
Claims 1, 4, 13, and 15 and are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 4, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential steps, such omission amounting to a gap between the steps. See MPEP § 2172.01. At least an essential step between the limitation “forming an active link between the second wireless communication device and the first wireless communication device via a first controller of the plurality of controllers” and “during each connection interval of a measurement period” is missing. The omitted step(s) are: Monitor the formed active link; initiate a connection measurement period; and transmit one packet per connection period.
Claims 2-3 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because of their dependency from claim 1.
Claims 5-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph because of their dependency from claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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, 3-4, 6-7, 11-13, 15, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russo et al. (US 2017/0065882 A1) in view of Chen et al. (US 2004/0203463 A1) further in view of Wakiyama (US 2005/0010759 A1).
For claim 1 Russo teaches a method for a half-duplex wireless communication system comprising a first wireless communication device including a router coupled to a plurality of controllers, each controller including an RF transceiver (Fig. 1 “consol 10 with two interface (controllers) each interface includes an RF transceiver”), the method comprising:
configuring the first wireless communication device as a central device and a second wireless communication device as a peripheral device (Fig. 1 and paragraph 34 “console (access point (AP))110 (a central device) and accessory (peripheral) devices”);
forming an active link between the second wireless communication device and the first wireless communication device via a first controller of the plurality of controllers (paragraph 95 “service (re )discovery is used to establish an active connection (active link) to a console”);
during each connection interval of a measurement period (paragraph 39 “single communication period”):
transmitting only one data packet via the first controller (paragraph 39 “optional: a single or multiple packet transmission” and claim 24 “single trigger packet and receiving two packets”); and
receiving two data packets via a second controller of the plurality of controllers (paragraph 39 “optional: a single or multiple packet transmission” and claim 24 “single trigger packet and receiving two packets”).
Although Russo teaches in one embodiment, a radio in an accessory may measure the average time from the beginning of a trigger packet of a burst from a connected device to the end of the last ACK packet at the end of the burst and turnaround delay (paragraphs 41 and 45), Russo does not explicitly teaches “determining a first received signal quality from a data packet received via the first controller” and “determining a second received signal quality from the second of the two received data packets, wherein the second of the two data packets received at the second controller is transmitted by the second wireless communication device”.
However, Chen teaches at the terminal, the received signal is processed by a signal quality measurement unit 322 to determine the energy of each received frame and the energy of the FL (forward loop) PC (power control) bits for each frame interval. The frame energy may be computed in various manners and may take into account symbol errors in the received frame, as described below. Unit 322 provides the PC bit energy and frame energy to a DTX frame detector 324 (Chen: paragraph 36 and Fig. 3).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing claimed invention to use the teachings of Chen in the wireless system of Russo to measure the quality of received signals in order to control or adjust transmitter power (Chen: paragraph 36 and Fig. 3).
Russo in view of Chen does not explicitly teach a second received signal quality from the second of the two received data packets. Russo in view of Chen does not explicitly teach how to separate the two packets before its signal strength being measured.
However, Wakiyama teaches at Step S410, it is determined whether the this-time received communications packet is the second packet of two-packet structured packets based on the packet structure information of the control information extracted at Step S230 in FIG. 4 after the controlling section 24 of the receiver 21 starts the packet-missing detection process.
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing claimed invention to use the teachings of Chen in the combined wireless system of Chen and Russo to separate the second packet from the first packet to measure its received signal quality (Chen: paragraph 36 and Fig. 3).
For claim 3 Russo in view of Chen and further in view of Wakiyama teaches the method further comprising, during each connection interval of a measurement period:
receiving two data packets at a third controller of the plurality of controllers (Russo: claim 24 “single trigger packet and receiving two packets” and as discussed in claim 1); and
determining a third received signal quality from the second of the two received data packets (Chen: Fig. 3 “signal Quality measurement 322”);
wherein the second of the two data packets received at the third controller is transmitted by the second wireless communication device (Russo: claim 24 “single trigger packet and receiving two packets” and as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 4 Russo in view of Chen and further in view of Wakiyama teaches a method for a half-duplex wireless communication system comprising a first wireless communication device including a router coupled to a plurality of controllers (as discussed in claim 1), the method comprising:
configuring the first wireless communication device as a peripheral device and a second wireless communication device as a central device (as discussed in claim 1);
forming an active link between the second wireless communication device and the first wireless communication device via a first controller of the plurality of controllers (as discussed in claim 1);
during each connection interval of a measurement period (as discussed in claim 1):
suspending data packet transmission via the first controller (Russo: paraph 41 “by reserving a period of time, only the trigger packet may be forced to contend for the medium, subsequent packets or frames in the exchange may not need to contend (suspending data packet transmission)-back-off design options”);
determining a first received signal quality from a data packet received via the first controller (as discussed in claim 1); and
determining a second received signal quality from a data packet received via a second controller of the plurality of controllers, wherein the data packet received via the second controller is transmitted by the second wireless communication device (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 6 Russo in view of Chen and further in view of Wakiyama teaches the method further comprising, during each connection interval of a measurement period (as discussed in claim 1):
receiving a data packet at a third controller of the plurality of controllers (as discussed in claim 1- an optional design (configuration) variation);
determining a third received signal quality from the received data packet (as discussed in claim 1);
wherein the data packet received at the third controller is transmitted by the second wireless communication device (as discussed in claim 1-an optional design (configuration) variation).
For claim 7 Russo in view of Chen and further in view of Wakiyama teaches the method, further comprising:
handing over the active link from the first controller to the second controller dependent on the first received signal quality and the second received signal quality (Chen: paragraph 21 “active link handoff”).
For claim 11 Russo in view of Chen and further in view of Wakiyama teaches the method, further comprising:
monitoring a signal quality of a signal received via the first controller (as discussed in claim 1); and
initiating the measurement period dependent on the signal quality (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 12 Russo in view of Chen and further in view of Wakiyama teaches the method, wherein the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication are configured as Bluetooth Low Energy, BLE, devices, and wherein the plurality of controllers are configured as BLE controllers (Russo: paragraph 89 and Fig. 8 “Bluetooth 864 or Wi-Fi 862”).
For claim 13 Russo in view of Chen and further in view of Wakiyama teaches a half-duplex wireless communication device configured as a central device and comprising a router coupled to a plurality of controllers, each controller comprising an RF transceiver (as discussed in claim 1), the device configured to:
wirelessly communicate via an active link to a further half-duplex wireless communication device configured as a peripheral device with a first controller of the plurality of controllers (Chen: “716 and 754 full-duplexer can be replaced by half-duplexer- a design modification” and as discussed in claim 1);
wherein during each connection interval of a measurement period, the router (Russo: paragraph 33 “AP is connected to a router” and as discussed in claim 1) is configured to:
control the first controller to transmit only one data packet (as discussed in claim 1);
determine a first received signal quality from a data packet received via the first controller (as discussed in claim 1);
receive two data packets at a second controller of the plurality of controllers (as discussed in claim 1); and
determine a second received signal quality from the second of the two received data packets, wherein a second packet of the two data packets received at the second controller is transmitted by the further half-duplex wireless communication device (as discussed in claim 1).
For claim 15 Russo in view of Chen and further in view of Wakiyama teaches a half-duplex wireless communication device configured as a peripheral device and comprising a router coupled to a plurality of controllers, the device configured to:
wirelessly communicate via an active link to a further half-duplex wireless communication device configured as a peripheral device with a first controller of the plurality of controllers (as discussed in claim 13);
wherein during each connection interval of a measurement period, the router (as discussed in claim 13) is configured to:
suspend data packet transmission via the first controller (as discussed in claims 4 and 13);
determine a first received signal quality from a data packet received via the first controller (as discussed in claim 13); and
determine a second received signal quality from a data packet received via a second controller of the plurality of controllers (as discussed in claim 13).
For claim 19 Russo in view of Chen teaches the method of claim 1 (as discussed in claim 11), further comprising:
monitoring a signal quality of a signal received via the first controller 1 (as discussed in claim 11); and
initiating the measurement period dependent on the signal quality 1 (as discussed in claim 11).
For claim 20 Russo in view of Chen and further in view of Wakiyama teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first wireless communication device and the second wireless communication are configured as Bluetooth Low Energy, BLE, devices, and wherein the plurality of controllers are configured as BLE controllers (as discussed in claim 12).
7. Claims 9-10, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russo in view of Chen further in view of Wakiyama and further Chaung et al. (US 2024/0147556 A1).
For claim 9 Russo in view of Chen and further in view of Wakiyama teaches the method, wherein determining the first received signal quality and the second received signal quality further comprises determining a first received signal strength and a second received signal strength (as discussed in claim 1), and wherein the method further comprises:
Russo in view of Chen and further in view of Wakiyama does not explicitly teach transferring the active link to the second controller in response to the first received signal strength being less than the second received signal strength.
However, Chuang teaches the peripheral device 100 can include a controller the controller 104 that can compare the signal strength of the first wireless connection 106-1 and the signal strength of the second wireless connection 106-2 to a threshold signal strength and based on the comparison, designate an active connection and a standby connection (Chuang: paragraph 16).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing claimed invention to use the teachings of Chuang in the combined wireless system of Wakiyama, Chen and Russo to transfer handoff from a link with low signal quality to a link with higher ling signal quality and make the link with a higher signal quality as an active link (Chuang: paragraph 16).
For claim 10 Russo in view of Chen and further in view of Wakiyama and further in view of Chuang teaches the method of claim 6 (as discussed in claim 6), further comprising :
handing over the active link from the first controller to one of the second controller and the third controller dependent on the first received signal quality, the second received signal quality and the third received signal quality (as discussed in claim 9).
For claim 16 Russo in view of Chen and further in view of Wakiyama and further in view of Chuang teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising:
handing over the active link from the first controller to the second controller dependent on the first received signal quality and the second received signal quality (as discussed in claim 9).
For claim 18 Russo in view of Chen and further in view of Wakiyama and further in view of Chuang teaches the method of claim 3, further comprising:
handing over the active link from the first controller to one of the second controller and the third controller dependent on the first received signal quality, the second received signal quality and the third received signal quality (as discussed in claim 9).
8. Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Russo in view of Chen and further in view of Wakiyama and further in view of Chuang and further Ghosh et al. (US 2014/0141714 A1).
For claim 8 Russo in view of Chen and further in view of Wakiyama and further in view of Chuang teaches the method of claim 7 wherein handing over the active link (Chen: paragraph 21 “active link handoff”) further comprises:
Russo in view of Chen and further in view of Wakiyama and further in view of Chuang does not explicitly teach retrieving a controller context from the first controller; providing the controller context to the second controller; and requesting that the second controller is configured is the active controller.
However, Ghosh teaches The middleware layer 202 may include a context transfer medium selection component 208. The communication medium for transferring the context between devices may be decided based on whether the medium is already connected, and how much time would be required for a transfer. If the context data is large or the communication medium available is slow, then the middleware may transfer the context data using another available high-speed communication medium (Ghosh: at least paragraph 27).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the before the effective filing claimed invention to use the teachings of Chen in the combined wireless system of Chung, Wakiyama, Chen and Russo to transfer the context if the current medium (controller) is slow (Ghosh: at least paragraph 27).
For claim 17 Russo in view of Chen and further in view of Wakiyama and further in view of Chuang and further in view of Ghosh teaches the method of claim 16, wherein handing over the active link further comprises:
retrieving a controller context from the first controller (as discussed in claim 8);
providing the controller context to the second controller (as discussed in claim 8); and
requesting that the second controller is configured as the active controller (as discussed in claim 8).
Conclusion
9. 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.
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to David M OVEISSI whose telephone number is (571)270-3127. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8Am-5PM.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270 - 1215. 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.
/MANSOUR OVEISSI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights