DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
Claims 5, 10, 11, 15, is 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.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the time period" and “the threshold amount of time” in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the host device” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the pair of truly wireless devices” in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the time period" and “the threshold amount of time” in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 5-11, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Jang et al. (US 2021/0050960).
Regarding claim 1, 11, Jang discloses a method for transmitting data to a pair of truly wireless devices (user device 201 may be a portable electronic device (e.g., a smartphone). The first device 202-1 and the second device 202-2 may be wireless earphones or wireless earbuds constituting a single set (correlating to a pair of truly wireless devices)…the first device 202-1 and/or the second device 202-2 may receive an audio signal from the user device 201, [0067] and figure 3 and [0180]-[0188] and figure 13 and [0207]-[0210] and figure 16 and figure 3 and figure 4 and [0094] and [0111]), the method comprising:
determining, by a first device of the pair of truly wireless devices, a first data packet was received (In the first time interval T1, the first device 202-1 may successfully receive the first data 1601 via the first link 205, [0207] and figure 16);
determining, by the first device, the first data packet was not received by a second device of the pair of truly wireless devices (first device 202-1 may identify a data retransmission event. The first device 202-1 may identify a data retransmission event by detecting or determining a failure of reception of a data packet by the second device 202-2 via the first link 205 and second device 202-2 may transmit, to the first device 202-1…a first response signal 1603 indicating whether the first data 1601 is received. In the present example, the first response signal 1603 may indicate a reception failure. For example, the second device 202-2 may transmit the first response signal 1603 before a second time interval T2 begins so that the first response signal 1603 overlaps at least a portion of the second time interval T2, thereby allowing the first device 202-1 to recognize whether the second device 202-2 has received before the first device 202-1 transmits a response signal to the user device 201, [0181] and [0208]-[0209] and figure 13 and figure 16); and
in response to determining the second device did not receive the first data packet, requesting, by the first device, the first data packet be retransmitted (the first device 202-1 may request the user device 201 to retransmit a data packet in operation 1320. For example, the first device 202-1 may request the user device 201 to retransmit a data packet by transmitting, to the user device 201, a response message indicating NACK, a signal for instructing execution of a retransmission operation, or an ID packet and The first device 202-1 may identify occurrence of a retransmission event when the first device 202-1 receives a negative acknowledgement (NACK) from the second device 202-2…The first device 202-1 may transmit a second response signal 1605 to the user device 201 in response to the occurrence of the retransmission event…the first device 202-1 may transmit the second response signal 1605 if data retransmission by the first device 202-1 is determined, [0187] and [0209] and figure 13 and figure 16).
Regarding claim 5, 15, Jang discloses forwarding, by the first device, the first data packet to the second device (In a third time interval T3, the first device 202-1 may retransmit the first data 1601 to the second device 202-2 and Data 1 at T3 illustrating forwarding seen in Figure 16, [0210] and figure 16) after determining the time period since the first data packet was transmitted is equal to or greater than the threshold amount of time (the first device 202-1 may recognize the reception failure of the second device 202-2 if the first device 202-1…fails to receive a response message within a specified time (correlating to a time period is equal to or greater than a threshold amount of time if not within) and the acknowledgement is not received within a specified time (e.g., operation 1525-N), the first device 202-1 may retransmit a data packet, [0069] and [0204] and [0062]-[0063] and [0095] and [0109]).
Regarding claim 6, 16, Jang discloses requesting, by the first device, another data packet be transmitted (the first device 202-1 may instruct the user device 201 to…resume transmission of a subsequent data packet , [0108]-[0109] and [0204] and [0211]-[0212] and figure 16).
Regarding claim 7, 17, Jang discloses receiving, by the first device, a receipt acknowledgement sent by the second device after the second device received the first data packet (The response message may include a positive acknowledgement (ACK) message indicating that the data packet has been received normally and The first device 202-1 may receive ACK from the second device in response to retransmission of the first data, [0062] and [0119] and [0095] and [0109] and [0114] and [0204]).
Regarding claim 8, 18, Jang discloses wherein the receipt acknowledgement is sent by the second device within a predetermined period of time (first device 202-1 may identify the data packet reception failure of the second device 202-2 if a response message (e.g., ACK or NACK) is not received from the second device 202-2 within a specified time after a data packet is received, [0095] and [0062] and [0069] and [0109] and [0204]).
Regarding claim 9, 19, Jang discloses, wherein the first device a first earbud and the second device is a second earbud (user device 201 may be a portable electronic device (e.g., a smartphone). The first device 202-1 and the second device 202-2 may be wireless earphones or wireless earbuds constituting a single set (correlating to a pair of truly wireless devices)…the first device 202-1 and/or the second device 202-2 may receive an audio signal from the user device 201, [0067] and figure 3 and [0180]-[0188] and figure 13 and [0207]-[0210] and figure 16).
Regarding claim 10, Jang discloses wherein the host device is a smartphone (user device 201 may be a portable electronic device (e.g., a smartphone), [0067] and figure 3 and [0180]-[0188] and figure 13 and [0207]-[0210] and figure 16).
Regarding claim 20, Jang discloses further comprising a host device, wherein the host device is configured to transmit the first data packet (user device 201 may be a portable electronic device (e.g., a smartphone). The first device 202-1 and the second device 202-2 may be wireless earphones or wireless earbuds constituting a single set (correlating to a pair of truly wireless devices)…the first device 202-1 and/or the second device 202-2 may receive an audio signal from the user device 201, [0067] and figure 3 and [0180]-[0188] and figure 13 and [0207]-[0210] and figure 16).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 2-4, 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jang et al. (US 2021/0050960), in further view of Shibata (US 2007/0280168).
Regarding claim 2, 12, Jang fails to disclose after determining the first data packet was not received by the second device, determining a time period since the first data packet was transmitted is less than a threshold amount of time. Jang however discloses the first device 202-1 may identify occurrence of a retransmission event when the first device 202-1 receives a negative acknowledgement (NACK) from the second device 202-2 ([0209]). In a similar field of endeavor, Shibata discloses after determining the first data packet was not received by the second device, determining a time period since the first data packet was transmitted is less than a threshold amount of time (a transmitted packet should be retransmitted if NACK is returned therefor…the associated transmitted packet is not retransmitted but discarded if acceptable delay determination module 23 determines that the acceptable delay is exceeded. Retransmission determination module 21 determines "retransmission not required" when "ACK" is returned or when "NACK is returned and the acceptable delay is exceeded," and determines "retransmission required" when "NACK is returned and the acceptable delay is not exceeded (correlating to a time period is less than a threshold amount of time)”, [0060]-[0062] and [0017] and [0054]). It 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 to incorporate the concept of determining if retransmission is required based upon NACK and a period of time being less than a threshold amount of time as disclosed by Shibata into the method comprising retransmitting data in which a first device may request to retransmit a data packet as disclosed by Jang in order to improve the system and impose requirements on delays, such that retransmissions may be determined.
Regarding claim 3, 13, Jang discloses requesting the first data packet be retransmitted (the first device 202-1 may request the user device 201 to retransmit a data packet in operation 1320. For example, the first device 202-1 may request the user device 201 to retransmit a data packet by transmitting, to the user device 201, a response message indicating NACK, a signal for instructing execution of a retransmission operation, or an ID packet and The first device 202-1 may identify occurrence of a retransmission event when the first device 202-1 receives a negative acknowledgement (NACK) from the second device 202-2, [0187] and [0209] and figure 13 and figure 16). Jang however fails to disclose the first data packet be retransmitted in response to determining the time period since the first data packet was transmitted is less than the threshold amount of time. Shibata discloses the first data packet be retransmitted in response to determining the time period since the first data packet was transmitted is less than the threshold amount of time (a transmitted packet should be retransmitted if NACK is returned therefor…the associated transmitted packet is not retransmitted but discarded if acceptable delay determination module 23 determines that the acceptable delay is exceeded. Retransmission determination module 21 determines "retransmission not required" when "ACK" is returned or when "NACK is returned and the acceptable delay is exceeded," and determines "retransmission required" when "NACK is returned and the acceptable delay is not exceeded (correlating to a time period is less than a threshold amount of time)”, [0060]-[0062] and [0017] and [0054]). It 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 to incorporate the concept of determining if retransmission is required based upon NACK and a period of time being less than a threshold amount of time as disclosed by Shibata into the method comprising retransmitting data in which a first device may request to retransmit a data packet as disclosed by Jang in order to improve the system and impose requirements on delays, such that retransmissions may be determined.
Regarding claim 4, 14, Shibata discloses after determining the first data packet was not received by the second device, determining a time period since the first data packet was transmitted is equal to or greater than a threshold amount of time (a transmitted packet should be retransmitted if NACK is returned therefor…the associated transmitted packet is not retransmitted but discarded if acceptable delay determination module 23 determines that the acceptable delay is exceeded (correlating to a time period is equal or greater than a threshold amount of time). Retransmission determination module 21 determines "retransmission not required" when "ACK" is returned or when "NACK is returned and the acceptable delay is exceeded," and determines "retransmission required" when "NACK is returned and the acceptable delay is not exceeded”, [0060]-[0062] and [0017] and [0054]). It 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 to incorporate the concept of determining if retransmission is required based upon NACK and a period of time being equal to or greater than a threshold amount of time as disclosed by Shibata into the method comprising retransmitting data in which a first device may request to retransmit a data packet as disclosed by Jang in order to improve the system and impose requirements on delays, such that retransmissions may be determined.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al. (US 2018/0084606) disclosing the one of the first or second wireless audio output devices determines whether an audio packet transmitted by the source device via the first piconet was received by the first wireless audio output device and the second wireless audio output device, and, when at least one of the first wireless audio output device or the second wireless audio output device did not receive the audio packet, the audio packet is exchanged between the first and second wireless audio output devices via the second piconet (abstract).
Liu et al. (US 2008/0151881) disclosing when an expected packet has not arrived after a given time threshold, it is assumed to have been lost, and only then will retransmission be requested if appropriate ([0055]).
Gostev et (US 2018/0084456) disclosing the first and second wireless audio output devices exchange information via the second piconet such that the both wireless audio output device receive the audio packet (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN HOANG NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-8398. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-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, Kwang Yao can be reached at 571-272-3182. 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.
/NGUYEN H NGO/Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights