Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on May 25, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12, 14, and 16-24 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6, 8-10, 12, 14, and 16-24 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12, 14, and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 1 and 14 recite “when the channel changes, determining whether a frequency band for data transmission between the second electronic device and the first electronic device is the same as a frequency band for data transmission between the second electronic device and the wireless access point; and responsive to the frequency bands being the same, determining whether to switch the channel for data transmission between the second electronic device and the first electronic device based on the channel for data transmission between the second electronic device and the wireless access point.” However, nothing has been found in the specification of the present application that describes switching the channel for data transmission between the second and the first electronic devices based on the channel for data transmission between the second electronic device and the wireless access point after the channel has already been switched. Accordingly, claims 1 and 14 recite subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, claims 1 and 14 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Dependent claims 2-6, 8-10, and 12 depend from independent claim 1 and dependent claims 16-24 depend from independent claim 14. Since dependent claims 2-6, 8-10, 12, and 16-24 incorporate every limitation of the independent claims 1 and 14, they are also recite subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Thus, claims 2-6, 8-10, 12, and 16-24 fail to comply with the written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1-6, 8-10, 12, 14, and 16-24 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.
Independent claim 1, line 18, and independent claim 14, line 21 recite “when the channel changes, determining whether a frequency band for data transmission.” However, the claims also recite “establish/[ing] a third link configured to perform data transmission with the second electronic device, wherein a frequency band in which the third link is located is different from a preset frequency band.” It is unclear whether the two “a frequency band” recited in claims 1 and 14 are referring to the same frequency band of the third link or a different frequency band. Nothing has been provided in the claims that clarifies it. Therefore, the abovementioned limitation fails to reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, claims 1 and 14 are indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. For examination purposes, the two recitations of “a frequency band” have been construed as different from each other.
Additionally, claims 1 and 14 recite “responsive to the frequency bands being the same, determining whether to switch the channel for data transmission between the second electronic device and the first electronic device based on the channel for data transmission between the second electronic device and the wireless access point.” However, nothing has been recited in the claims what the criteria or condition for the switching. Instead, the claims only recite “determining whether to switch” when the frequency bands but does not describe a condition that causes the switch in a manner to reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the abovementioned limitation further fails to reasonably apprise one of ordinary skill in the art of the scope of the invention. Accordingly, claims 1 and 14 are also indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention due to the abovementioned limitations. For examination purposes, the limitation has been construed as switching when the frequency bands are same.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12, 14, and 16-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao et al. (CN 112969081).
Regarding claim 1, Hao teaches “[a] method comprising: determining, by a first electronic device in response to a user operation, a second electronic device that performs data transmission with the first electronic device, wherein a first link exists between the first electronic device and a wireless access point, and wherein a second link exists between the second electronic device and … wireless access point” (see ¶¶ [0005], [0011], [0034], [0051], and [0055]; users have a requirement that mobile phones and TVs need to screened; user’s request for split-screen mode (i.e., user operation), where one screen of TV (first electronic device) separately displays content (i.e., performs data transmission) of mobile phone’s (second electronic device) screen (i.e., determining, by a first electronic device in response to a user operation, a second electronic device that performs data transmission with the first electronic device); the mobile phone provides a mobile cellular network for smart TV to connect to the Internet; TV (the first electronic device) is connected to the internet (i.e., though smart phone’s hotspot (i.e., first link exists between the first electronic device and a wireless access point); for the mobile phone to provide mobile cellular network, the mobile phone has to be connected to a cellular network (i.e., a second link exists between the second electronic device and wireless access point));
Hao further teaches “establishing a third link configured to perform data transmission with the second electronic device” (see ¶¶ [0055]; TV is connected to smart phone’s via P2P mode; thus, establishing a third link configured to perform data transmission with the second electronic device);
Hao also teaches “and when a first preset condition is met, either: a) establishing a fourth link connected to the second electronic device and disconnecting the first link, wherein the second electronic device provides a wireless communication network to the first electronic device through the fourth link; or b) establishing a fourth link connected to the second electronic device and maintaining the first link, wherein the first electronic device provides a wireless communication network to the second electronic device through the fourth link” (see ¶¶ [0055], and [0064]; if smart TV unable to connect to router (such a failure to connect can be a preset condition), the smart TV is connected to the hotspot (fourth link) of the smart phone (the second electronic device) through the STA (WIFI station) (i.e., establishing a fourth link connected to the second electronic device and disconnecting the first link); thus, establishing a fourth link connected to the second electronic device and disconnecting the first link, wherein the second electronic device provides a wireless communication network to the first electronic device through the fourth link));
Hao also teaches “wherein a frequency band in which the third link is located is different from a preset frequency band” (see ¶ [0064]; frequency band of the link (the third link) is 5GHz and the original link is 2.4 GHz; thus, a frequency band in which the third link is located is different from a preset frequency band).
While Hao does not explicitly disclose the second link exists between the second electronic device and “the” wireless access point. However, Hao does disclose in ¶ [0005] that “the current practice of many TV manufacturers is to use DBDC principle of the WIFI6 dual MAC mechanism, and single-module- dual-frequency coexistence, 2.4G connected to the internet, 5G for screen projection.” Therefore, Hao is describing that a device that has DBDC capability can connect to the same wireless access point as another device. Thus, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, based on the foregoing disclosure of Hao, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the invention of Han to have a second link exist between the second electronic device and the wireless access point. The suggestion to do so would have been to provide wireless connectivity to a device while being connected to another device without interrupting the Internet (see ¶ [0005]).
Regarding claim 2, Hao teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein the first preset condition being met comprises at least one electronic device of the first electronic device and the second electronic device does not have a first capability” (see ¶¶ [0054] and [0055]; the smart TV (first electronic device) may not be able to connect to the router (i.e., at least one electronic device does not have a first capability); thus, at least one electronic device of the first electronic device and the second electronic device does not have a first capability).
Regarding claim 3, Hao teaches the method of claim 2, and further teaches “wherein the first preset condition being met comprises at least one frequency band of a frequency band in which the first link is located and a frequency band in which the second link is located is the preset frequency band” (see ¶ [0064]; the smart TV is connected to the router through the first frequency; the first frequency can be the preset frequency band; thus, wherein the first preset condition being met comprises at least one frequency band of a frequency band in which the first link is located and a frequency band in which the second link is located is the preset frequency band).
Regarding claim 4, Hao teaches the method of claim 2, and further teaches “wherein the first capability is a dual band dual concurrent capability” (see ¶¶ [0005] and [0055]; smart TVs use DBDC [dual band dual concurrent] principle of the WIFI6 dual MAC mechanism; thus, the first capability is a dual band dual concurrent capability).
Regarding claim 5, Hao teaches the method of claim 2, and further teaches “further comprising performing transmission in a dual band adaptive concurrent manner if there is no first capability” (see ¶¶ [0005], [0054], [0055], [0056]; if the smart TV cannot connect to the router for Internet access (i.e., if there is no first capability), the smart TV uses the wireless module to start P2P detection to determine whether the smart phone needs to perform screen projection, and the smart TV prompts (i.e., transmission in a dual band adaptive concurrent manner) the smart phone to start the hotspot sharing Internet access AP mode; thus, performing transmission in a dual band adaptive concurrent manner if there is no first capability).
Regarding claim 6, Hao teaches the method of claim 3, and further teaches “wherein the preset frequency band is 2.4 gigahertz (GHz}, and the frequency band in which the third link is located is 5 GHz, and wherein the third link is a peer-to-peer (P2P) link” (see ¶¶ [0013], [0054], [0055], [0064], [0069]; smart TV is connected to the router through the first frequency; the first frequency can be the preset frequency band; the first frequency, such as 2.4G (2.4 gigahertz (GHz)); additionally, dual-frequency P2P detection message, when there is a smart phone frequency B (that is, a second frequency, for example, the second frequency of a smart phone working is 5G [5 GHz]); thus, the preset frequency band is 2.4 gigahertz (GHz}, and the frequency band in which the third link is located is 5 GHz, and wherein the third link is a peer-to-peer (P2P) link).
Regarding claim 8, Hao teaches the method of claim 3, and further teaches “wherein the fourth link is established and the first link is maintained either c) when the first electronic device has the first capability and the second electronic device does not have the first capability, or d) when neither the first electronic device nor the second electronic device has the first capability and a theoretical peak rate of the second electronic device is less than a theoretical peak rate of the first electronic device” (see ¶¶ [0005], [0054], [0055], [0064], [0069]; the smart TV is connected to the hotspot (fourth link) of the smart thought the STA (WIFI station); and, the smart TV is connected to the internet (first link); additionally, the first and second electronic devices roles can be swapped based on the disclosure of Hao such that the smart phone does not have the first capability, therefore the fourth link is established and the first link is maintained when the first electronic device has the first capability and the second electronic device does not have the first capability).
Regarding claim 9, Hao teaches the method of claim 3, and further teaches “wherein the fourth link is established and the first link is disconnected either e) when the first electronic device does not have the first capability and the second electronic device does has the first capability, or f) when neither the first electronic device nor the second electronic device has the first capability and a theoretical peak rate of the second electronic device is greater than a theoretical peak rate of the first electronic device” (see ¶¶ [0005], [0054], [0055], [0064], [0069]; the smart TV is connected to the hotspot (fourth link) of the smart thought the STA (WIFI station); and, the smart TV cannot connect to the router; thus, wherein the fourth link is established and the first link is disconnected either e) when the first electronic device does not have the first capability and the second electronic device does has the first capability).
Regarding claim 10, Hao teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein after the establishing the fourth link and disconnecting the first link, the method further comprises switching a channel on which the second link works if a frequency band in which the second link is located is the same as the frequency band in which the third link is located and the channel on which the second link works is different from a channel on which the third link works, wherein a switched channel of the second link is the same as the channel on which the third link works” (see ¶¶ [0005], [0054], [0055], and [0064] – [0069]; the smart TV transmits a dual-frequency P2P detection message through a wireless module to detect whether the smart phone is performing screen projection; the smart phone performs screen projection using the second frequency, the smart TV recognizes the frequency band of the detection request frame that interacts with the smart phone (i.e., a frequency band in which the second link is located is the same as the frequency band in which the third link is located and the channel on which the second link works is different from a channel on which the third link works); the smart TV restarts the second frequency matching the smart phone according to the frequency band (switching a channel on which the second link works and wherein a switched channel of the second link is the same as the channel on which the third link works)).
Regarding claim 12, Hao teaches the method of claim 1, and further teaches “wherein after establishing the fourth link and maintaining the first link, the method further comprises switching a channel on which the first link works if a frequency band in which the first link is located is the same as the frequency band in which the third link is located and the channel on which the first link works is different from a channel on which the third link works, wherein a switched channel of the first link is the same as the channel on which the third link works” (see ¶¶ [0005], [0054], [0055], and [0064] – [0069]; the smart TV can be connected to the current router through frequency A to play the video on the Internet and when there is a smart phone frequency B, and when there is a need for projection, the smart TV restarts the WIFI frequency B matching the smart phone according to the frequency band of the Probe Request frame that is interacting with the smart phone and reconnects with the router (i.e., a frequency band in which the first link is located is the same as the frequency band in which the third link is located and the channel on which the first link works is different from a channel on which the third link works); thus, a channel on which the first link works is switched to a channel on which the third link works if the foregoing condition is met).
Regarding claims 14 and 16-24, they are the device claims corresponding to claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12 that have been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claims 1-6, 8-10, and 12. Claims 14 and 16-24 are rejected under the same rationale.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY whose telephone number is (571)272-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY/Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights