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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/04/2024, 11/20/2024, 11/14/2025 and 07/02/2026 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner
Status of the Application
This Office action is in response to the amendment and remarks filed July 15, 2026. Claims 5 and 13 have been amended; claims 21 and 22 have been added; claims 6 and 14 have been cancelled. Claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-20 remain unchanged.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, and 15-22 are pending and are examined herein. The rejections of unchanged claims 1-4, 7-12, and 15-20 are maintained, with further explanation of the previously applied combinations in response to Applicant’s arguments. Claims 5 and 13 are addressed as amended using the previously applied teachings for the incorporated limitations. The new grounds of rejection of claims 21 and 22 were necessitated by the addition of those claims. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed July 15, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With respect to Applicant’s argument that “the cited references (Huang, Palmer, and Giles) fail to disclose the four-device configuration” (Remarks, page 10, paragraph 2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. As a threshold matter, claim 1 is directed to a single apparatus (i.e., “a processor connected to the first communication unit ... in response to receiving the connection request, perform pairing operation of the display device”), the display device, which comprises a first communication unit, a second communication unit, and a processor. The first electronic device, the source device, and the remote control device are not positively recited elements of the claimed display device; claim 1 refers to them only to identify what the display device’s processor receives and transmits, and through which communication unit. The internal operation of those other devices is outside the scope of claim 1, and the claim does not require a four-device system as Applicant characterizes “... a processor connected to ...”. Therefore, Applicant’s argument that the references fail to disclose a “four-device configuration” therefore asks for more than claim 1 recites. The Examiner nevertheless addresses the device correspondence that Applicant raises. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed first electronic device is defined by its function: it transmits, to the display device, image data that it received from a source device. The Examiner’s position is that Huang’s Wi-Fi-connected upstream device performs that function when the audio/video data it forwards to sink device 160 has been streamed to it over a network connection (Huang, para [0035]). The Examiner’s position is further that, in the combination of Huang, Palmer, and Giles applied in the prior Office action, Palmer’s Figure 1A and paragraph [0019] place wireless access point (WAP) 110 on the local area network between client machine 106 and BLE device 114, paragraph [0035] identifies client machine 106 as the host that generates the streamed video received at BLE device 114, and paragraph [0041] routes the controller’s input from BLE device 114 over the LAN to client machine 106. In that combination, client machine 106 corresponds to the claimed source device, WAP 110 corresponds to the claimed first electronic device that relays the host’s data, BLE device 114 corresponds to the claimed display device, and game controller 102 corresponds to the claimed remote control device. These are four distinct devices, and WAP 110 performs the relay function that Applicant asserts is absent. In response to applicant’s arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
In the Examiner’s combination, Huang supplies the wireless-display and back-channel teachings, Palmer supplies the four-device network topology and the display-side controller pairing, and Giles supplies the transfer of pairing information over the local network; the rejection rests on what these combined teachings would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art, not on bodily incorporation of one reference into another. Each reference is applied for a function it already performs in its own system, and combining them changes the principle of operation of none of them; combining Huang’s wireless display sink, Palmer’s Bluetooth controller relay topology, and Giles’s inter-host transfer of pairing information would have yielded no more than the predictable result of a display sink that pairs with a controller and forwards the pairing information over the network it already uses. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). That rejection relies on three references does not, by itself, weigh against obviousness. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Furthermore, the Examiner notes that this device correspondence applies the same references, the same combination, and the same Palmer passages that the prior Office action cited. The Examiner sets the correspondence out expressly here in response to Applicant’s argument; doing so does not change the thrust of the rejection and is not a new ground of rejection.
In regard to Applicant’s argument that the devices “do not perform the relay function performed by the first electronic device of Claim 1” (Remarks, pages 10-11, paragraph 2), the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant characterizes Palmer’s BLE device 114 as, at best, a sink and Giles’s host devices as, at best, source devices. The Examiner does not read the claimed first electronic device on either of those devices; the Examiner reads it on Palmer’s WAP 110. In Palmer, the host’s streamed video reaches BLE device 114 over the local area network served by WAP 110 (Palmer, Fig. 1A, para [0019], para [0035]), and controller input travels in the reverse direction from controller 102 through BLE device 114 and the LAN to client machine 106 (Palmer, para [0041]). Giles teaches transmitting pairing data between host-side devices over a LAN (Giles, para [0036]). The Examiner’s position is therefore that, in the proposed combination, the first electronic device operates as a network relay in both directions and the transferred pairing information supports the controller handoff. The added language of claim 21 does not change this result, because Palmer identifies the host as the generator of the streamed image data and Giles teaches the further transfer of pairing information from one host-side device to another.
As to Applicant’s argument that “this claim is patentable for at least the same reasons discussed above with regards to claim 1” (Remarks, page 11, paragraph 2), the Examiner notes that claim 9 is the method counterpart of claim 1 and stands rejected for the reasons stated for claim 1. Applicant further contends that claims 2-8 and 10-16 are patentable by virtue of their dependencies and their additional features. The Examiner does not reject claims 2-5, 7-8, 10-13, and 15-16 merely because they depend from claims 1 or 9; the Examiner maps each added limitation separately below. In particular, Applicant’s amendments to claims 5 and 13 move the Bluetooth address and device-identification limitations of cancelled claims 6 and 14 into those claims, and Giles paragraph [0049] expressly describes transferring a Bluetooth device address, a link key, and a PIN code between hosts.
Turning to Applicant’s argument that Lea’s error notification “is not a connection request with the companion device” (Remarks, page 12, paragraph 3), the Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s characterization of the rejection. The Examiner does not equate Lea’s error notification with the claimed connection request. The Examiner relies on Lea for the failover condition and sequence: when the controller cannot maintain or obtain communication with the last-paired gaming system, it obtains pairing data for another system and sends that system a pairing request. The Examiner relies on Palmer for the display-side BLE target and the controller-to-display link. In the Examiner’s combination, Lea’s failure-responsive selection logic is applied with Palmer’s display-side device as the target, so that the request to the display device follows the identified loss of the source-side link. Applicant’s argument addresses Lea’s error notification in isolation; the rejection relies on the pairing request that follows it, and the error notification is only part of Lea’s disclosed transition process, not the claimed request itself.
With respect to Applicant’s contention that claim 18 is patentable “at least by virtue of its dependency” (Remarks, page 13, paragraph 1) and that claims 19-20 are patentable “at least by virtue of their dependencies” (Remarks, page 13, paragraph 3), the Examiner maintains the rejection of claim 17 for the reasons stated above, and Applicant’s dependency argument therefore does not apply. The Examiner notes that the restated rejection of claim 17 quotes Palmer paragraph [0036] for the controller’s connection request; the prior Office action cited that paragraph for the same teaching, and quoting it here does not change the ground. As to the additional features of these claims, Applicant does not identify any feature that the applied references fail to teach. Palmer expressly identifies the short-range link as Bluetooth Low Energy (claim 18). Tian expressly teaches receiving a Bluetooth advertising packet and responding with a packet indicating an intent to connect (claim 19). For claim 20, the prior Office action applied, and this action continues to apply, Lea’s stored-host reconnection mechanism to the loss of the display link: the controller uses its stored pairing data to request a connection with the previously paired source device, restoring a direct path for user input.
In regard to Applicant’s statement that “New claims 21-22 are added and are believed to be patentable” (Remarks, page 13, paragraph 5), the Examiner has considered claims 21 and 22 on their own terms. The Examiner’s position is that claim 21 is met by the same four-device Palmer topology together with Giles’s inter-host transfer of pairing data, and that claim 22, which adds the loss-of-connection trigger, is met by Lea’s failure-responsive pairing sequence, which supplies that trigger and the ensuing request to a recommended device. For at least these reasons, the rejections are maintained and are restated below to address the amended claim language. The rejections of claims 5, 13, 21, and 22 include new grounds of rejection necessitated by the amendment filed July 15, 2026.
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.
Claims 1-5, 7-13, 15-16, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2013/0179605 A1) in view of Palmer (US 2020/0306625 A1) and further in view of Giles (US 2012/0083208 A1).
Regarding claim 1, (Original) Huang discloses: A display device, comprising: a first communication unit performing communication based on a first wireless communication technology, because Huang teaches sink device 160 receiving the encoded audio/video data from source device 120 over a Wi-Fi channel and rendering the received data on its display: (Huang, para [0046] “Sink device 160 renders the received media data on its display and audio equipment”; Huang, para [0047] “Source device 120 and sink device 160 may then communicate over communication channel 150 using a communications protocol such as a standard from the IEEE 802.11 family of standards.”)
Furthermore, Huang discloses: a second communication unit performing communication based on a second wireless communication technology, because Huang teaches a Bluetooth interface through which the sink communicates with a peripheral device: (Huang, para [0043] “allow source device 120 and sink device 160 to communicate with peripheral devices 170 over various interfaces, e.g., USB, BLUETOOTH,”)
Moreover, Huang discloses: and a processor connected to the first communication unit and the second communication unit, wherein the processor is configured to, because Huang teaches a wireless display sink whose host interface controllers and drivers manage the wireless-display and peripheral interfaces and process media for rendering: (Huang, para [0034] “Sink device 160 may include display 162, speaker 163, audio/video decoder 164 (also referred to as decoder 164), host interface controllers 165 (HICs 165), transmitter/receiver unit 166, user input (UI) device 167, user input processing module (UIPM) 168, and driver 169.”; Huang, para [0044] “Drivers 128 and 169 may each comprise software, hardware, firmware, or any other technology that may be used to control host interface controllers 127 and 165.”)
Although Huang teaches a wireless display sink, wireless media reception, and Bluetooth peripheral support: (Huang, para [0034], para [0043], para [0047]), Huang does not explicitly disclose the claimed four-device relay arrangement together with controller-initiated connection and pairing at the display.
However, Huang in view of Palmer discloses receive, from a first electronic device for transmitting data received from a source device, through the first communication unit, first image data because Palmer teaches that the originating host client machine 106 supplies encoded video to WAP 110, which forwards it wirelessly to BLE device 114. In the combination, the host is the source device, WAP 110 is the first electronic device, and BLE device 114 implements the wireless-display functions of the sink (Palmer, para [0039], “the client machine 106 may be connected to the WAP 110 via a wired (e.g., Ethernet) connection for low latency, and the WAP 110 may send the encoded data wirelessly to the BLE device 114”).
Furthermore, Palmer discloses receive, from a remote control device for transmitting input information of the source device, through the second communication unit, a connection request because Palmer teaches a Bluetooth Low Energy game controller that initiates a Bluetooth Low Energy radio link with an intermediate Bluetooth device by requesting the connection, where the controller’s purpose in establishing that link is to deliver controller input data ultimately destined for the host source device that runs the game software (Palmer, para [0036], “provide a notification in response to the game controller 102 entering BLE pairing mode, indicating to the player 120 that a game controller 102 wants to connect to the BLE device 114.”; Palmer, para [0037], “the game controller 102 may establish a radio link with the BLE device 114 executing the client app 252 using a radio of the game controller 102.”; Palmer, para [0041], “the game controller 102 may send the raw state of the game controller 102 to the client machine 106 via the BLE device 114 and the LAN”).
Moreover, Palmer discloses in response to receiving the connection request, perform pairing operation of the display device with the remote control device because Palmer teaches that the display-side Bluetooth device pairs with the requesting game controller when the connection request is accepted and thereafter operates with the paired controller (Palmer, para [0036], “The player 120 may provide user input to the BLE device accepting this connection request to pair the two devices over a BLE interface.”; Palmer, para [0037], “may operate in BLE mode by default in response to the player 120 pairing the game controller 102 over BLE with a BLE device 114.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the wireless display sink with Bluetooth peripheral support of Huang with the Bluetooth game controller relay architecture of Palmer, in order to allow a wireless display sink that has just established a Bluetooth link with a roaming gaming peripheral to receive input from that peripheral for delivery back to the source device running the game software. In the resulting arrangement, the source is client machine 106, the first electronic device is WAP 110, the display is BLE device 114 with Huang’s sink functions, and the remote is controller 102. Huang’s source-side processing and logical back-channel endpoint reside at client machine 106. The WAP relays video toward the display and controller traffic toward the source without assuming the source’s game-processing function. Applying Huang’s tunneling to Palmer’s existing return path would carry the peripheral input to the host while preserving the established video stream. The WAP’s reverse-direction network segment supplies the relay’s back channel; it need not terminate or interpret the tunneled input.
Doing so would predictably enable the user to continue controlling a source-side game from a Bluetooth gaming peripheral even when the peripheral has moved out of direct range of the source device, by using the display sink’s existing Bluetooth interface as an alternative entry point for controller input into the established Wi-Fi Display session.
Even though Huang in view of Palmer teaches display-side Bluetooth pairing and a local-network return path through the intermediate relay to the source: (Huang, para [0053], Palmer, para [0037], para [0040]), Huang in view of Palmer does not explicitly disclose sending the resulting controller pairing information over that network path.
Nevertheless, Huang in view of Palmer and further in view of Giles discloses and transmit pairing information of the display device and the remote control device to the first electronic device through the first communication unit, wherein the first electronic device and the display device are connected to a same network because Giles teaches transferring accessory pairing credentials from one host to another over a local network. Applied to the established network arrangement, the display sends the pairing information over its Wi-Fi interface to the first electronic device, WAP 110, for forwarding to the originating host. Giles supplies the inter-host transfer technique; the WAP remains the network relay, not a separately paired Bluetooth host (Giles, para [0036], “pairing data can be transmitted to a remote device over a bonjour/LAN connection, with the accessory device then connecting up and running with the new host as paired once it does come into range of the new host.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the wireless display sink with Bluetooth peripheral support of Huang, the Bluetooth game controller relay architecture of Palmer, and the inter-host pairing-credential transfer mechanism of Giles. The display occupies Giles’s sending-host role and the originating source occupies its receiving-host role. Sending the credentials over the same local-network path already used for controller traffic would deliver them first to WAP 110 over Wi-Fi and then onward to client machine 106. This uses the existing network to make the controller’s pairing information available at the source without a separate user pairing exchange with that host.
Doing so would predictably allow the originating source to recognize the controller when a direct connection becomes available. The WAP merely forwards the pairing data, just as it forwards other network traffic; no additional Bluetooth pairing with the WAP is proposed.
Regarding claim 2, which depends on claim 1, (Original) Huang discloses The display device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to: receive, from the remote control device through the second communication unit, data regarding a user input; and transmit, to the first electronic device through the first communication unit, the data regarding the user input, as Huang further discloses that peripheral input received at the sink is encapsulated for transport over the User Input Back Channel. Applied to the relayed network arrangement explained in claim 1, the display sends that traffic over Wi-Fi to WAP 110, the first electronic device, which forwards it to the source host for processing. The WAP is the receiving next hop, not the input-processing endpoint (Huang, para [0052] “the user inputs applied at wireless sink device 160 may be sent back to the wireless display source over communication channel 150.”; Huang, para [0053] “tunneling may refer to encapsulating peripheral data within the data connection of the UIBC.”)
Regarding claim 3, which depends on claim 2, (Original) Huang discloses The display device of claim 2, wherein the processor is configured to transmit the data regarding the user input through a back channel of the first electronic device and a back channel of the display device, as Huang further discloses a logical reverse channel carrying peripheral input from the display sink toward the source endpoint. In the combination explained in claim 1, this traffic passes through the display’s return-channel segment and the WAP’s upstream relay segment before reaching the source host. These are the claimed back channels of the display and first electronic device; the WAP forwards the encapsulated traffic rather than becoming Huang’s source-side endpoint (Huang, para [0053] “The techniques of this disclosure extend UIBC to include support a bi-directional communications channel for transmitting peripheral data from sink peripherals, e.g., peripheral devices 170, connected to sink device 160, via communication channel 150 to source device 120.”)
Regarding claim 4, which depends on claim 2, (Original) Huang discloses The display device of claim 2, further comprising a display connected to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to: receive, from the first electronic device through the first communication unit, second image data generated based on the data regarding the user input; and display a screen based on the second image data, as Huang further discloses that the wireless display sink includes a display unit and that, after user input is received over the back channel, the source device’s audio/video control module parses and interprets the input commands, generates updated audio/video content reflecting the input, and transmits that updated content to the sink for rendering on the display. In the combined arrangement of claim 1, that source processing is performed at client machine 106, and the resulting second image data returns through WAP 110 to the display. The WAP transmits the updated data but does not generate it (Huang, para [0049] “Based on the command received in the data packet, A/V control module 125 may change the content being encoded and transmitted.”; Huang, para [0046] “Sink device 160 renders the received media data on its display and audio equipment”)
Regarding claim 5, which depends on claim 1, (Currently Amended) Huang discloses The display device of claim 1, wherein: the first wireless communication technology comprises Wi-Fi, and the second wireless communication technology comprises Bluetooth, as Huang further discloses that the first wireless interface of the sink implements the Wi-Fi Display protocol for receiving media from the source and that the second wireless interface is a Bluetooth interface used to communicate with peripheral devices coupled to the sink (Huang, para [0047] “Source device 120 and sink device 160 may, for example, communicate according to the Wi-Fi Direct or Wi-Fi Display (WFD) standards”; Huang, para [0043] “allow source device 120 and sink device 160 to communicate with peripheral devices 170 over various interfaces, e.g., USB, BLUETOOTH,”)
Huang in view of Palmer and further in view of Giles discloses and wherein the pairing information comprises a medium access control (MAC) address of the remote control device and identification information about the remote control device, as Giles further discloses that the pairing credentials of a Bluetooth accessory transferred between hosts include the accessory’s Bluetooth device address, which serves as the MAC address of its Bluetooth radio, together with a unique link key and other information sufficient for the receiving host to recognize the specific accessory (Giles, para [0049], “Such information can include the unique link key, a specific address (e.g., a Bluetooth Device Address) and possibly a pin code for the accessory device.”)
Regarding claim 7, which depends on claim 1, (Original) Huang in view of Palmer discloses The display device of claim 1, wherein the processor is configured to display a user interface for performing pairing of the display device with the remote control device in response to receiving the connection request, as Palmer further discloses that, in response to a game controller’s request to establish a Bluetooth Low Energy connection with a display-side Bluetooth device, a pairing notification is presented through a client application on the display-side device asking the user to accept the controller connection. The user can complete the pairing operation through that interface (Palmer, para [0036], “provide a notification in response to the game controller 102 entering BLE pairing mode, indicating to the player 120 that a game controller 102 wants to connect to the BLE device 114.”; Palmer, para [0036], “The player 120 may provide user input to the BLE device accepting this connection request to pair the two devices over a BLE interface.”)
Regarding claim 8, which depends on claim 1, (Original) Huang discloses The display device of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to, in response to identifying that the source device and the display device are connected to each other, transmit information regarding a user input to the source device, as Huang further discloses that once the Wi-Fi Display session and User Input Back Channel between the sink and source have been established, the sink transmits user input information over the established back channel to the source device. In the combination of claim 1, the source endpoint remains client machine 106; WAP 110 relays the traffic on the established path and is not reassigned as the source (Huang, para [0052] “a reverse channel architecture, also referred to as a UIBC may be implemented to enable sink device 160 to transmit the user inputs applied at sink device 160 to source device 120.”)
Regarding claim 9, (Original) the claim recites: A method for operating a display device, the method comprising: receiving, from a first electronic device for transmitting data received from a source device, using a first wireless communication technology, first image data; receiving, from a remote control device for transmitting input information of the source device, using a second wireless communication technology, a connection request; performing pairing of the display device with the remote control device in response to receiving the connection request; and transmitting, to the first electronic device using the first wireless communication technology, pairing information of the display device and the remote control device, wherein the first electronic device and the display device are connected to a same network. Claim 9 is analogous to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, which depends on claim 9, (Original) the claim recites: The method of claim 9, further comprising: receiving, from the remote control device using the second wireless communication technology, data regarding a user input; and transmitting, to the first electronic device using the first wireless communication technology, the data regarding the user input. Claim 10 is analogous to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 11, which depends on claim 10, (Original) the claim recites: The method of claim 10, further comprising transmitting the data regarding the user input through a back channel of the first electronic device and a back channel of the display device. Claim 11 is analogous to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, which depends on claim 10, (Original) the claim recites: The method of claim 10, further comprising: receiving, from the first electronic device using the first wireless communication technology, second image data generated based on the data regarding the user input; and displaying a screen based on the second image data. Claim 12 is analogous to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, which depends on claim 9, (Currently Amended) the claim recites: The method of claim 9, wherein: the first wireless communication technology comprises Wi-Fi, and the second wireless communication technology comprises Bluetooth, and the pairing information comprises a medium access control (MAC) address of the remote control device and identification information about the remote control device. Claim 13 is analogous to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 15, which depends on claim 9, (Original) the claim recites: The method of claim 9, further comprising displaying a user interface for performing pairing of the display device with the remote control device in response to receiving the connection request. Claim 15 is analogous to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, which depends on claim 9, (Original) the claim recites: The method of claim 9, further comprising, in response to identifying that the source device and the display device are connected to each other, transmitting information regarding a user input to the source device. Claim 16 is analogous to claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 21, which depends on claim 1, (New) Huang in view of Palmer discloses The display device of claim 1, wherein the first image data is generated by the source device, as Palmer further discloses that the host executes the video game and streams its video data to the BLE display-side device (Palmer, para [0035], “the BLE device 114 receives video game data streamed from a host computer (e.g., the client machine 106) that is executing a video game 212”).
Huang in view of Palmer and further in view of Giles discloses and wherein, based on the pairing information being transmitted to the first electronic device, the pairing information is transmitted from the first electronic device to the source device, as Giles further discloses that one host communicates the accessory’s unique link key to a second host. Using the transfer route established in claim 1, the display is the sending host, client machine 106 is the receiving source host, and WAP 110 forwards the pairing information after receiving it from the display. The same transfer therefore includes the claimed further transmission from the first electronic device to the source; it does not require a second, differently mapped pair of Giles hosts (Giles, para [0012], “the pairing transfer can include the first host device communicating the unique link key to the second host device.”).
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lea (US 11,547,932 B2) in view of Palmer (US 2020/0306625 A1).
Regarding claim 17, (Original) Lea discloses: A method for operating a remote control device, the method comprising: performing data communication with a source device using a first short-range wireless communication technology, because Lea teaches a game controller that pairs with a gaming system over BLE, stores pairing information for previously paired systems, and uses the stored data to request a connection with the local gaming system. The BLE gaming-system link is the claimed first short-range wireless technology in this combination: (Lea, col. 2, lines 24-28 “In one example, the game controller 104 pairs with the tablet computer 108 using a second communication protocol, such as the Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) communication protocol.”; Lea, col. 13, lines 41-45 “At 704, the method 700 includes storing, in the storage subsystem, gaming-system pairing data for pairing the game controller with one or more previously-paired gaming systems with which the game controller has been previously paired.”; Lea, col. 14, lines 25-28 “At 720, the method 700 includes sending, via the communication interface, a pairing request to the local gaming system using a second communication protocol based on the gaming-system pairing data for the local gaming system.”)
Although Lea teaches failed-pairing recovery when a prior gaming system is unavailable, followed by a pairing request to a recommended gaming system: (Lea, col. 9, lines 2-8, col. 14, lines 61-65, col. 15, lines 1-3, col. 16, lines 29-59), Lea does not explicitly disclose invoking that recovery after identifying release of an established source connection and directing the resulting request to a display on the source’s wireless image network.
Nevertheless, Lea in view of Palmer discloses transmitting a connection request to a display device in response to identifying that connection of the remote control device with the source device is released because Palmer teaches that a Bluetooth Low Energy game controller initiates a Bluetooth Low Energy connection by transmitting a connection request to a display-side intermediate Bluetooth device for the purpose of forwarding controller input toward a host, which supplies the request and its display-side destination in the proposed recovery sequence. The requirement that the request follow identified release of the existing source link is supplied by the modification explained below, not by an assertion that this Palmer passage expressly describes that trigger (Palmer, para [0036], “a game controller 102 wants to connect to the BLE device 114. The player 120 may provide user input to the BLE device accepting this connection request to pair the two devices over a BLE interface.”; Palmer, para [0037], “the game controller 102 may establish a radio link with the BLE device 114 executing the client app 252 using a radio of the game controller 102.”).
Furthermore, Palmer discloses forming a wireless communication link between the remote control device and the display device using the first short-range wireless communication technology; and transmitting, to the display device through the wireless communication link, information regarding a user input to the remote control device because Palmer teaches that, after the connection request from the game controller is accepted, the controller and the display-side Bluetooth device complete the formation of a Bluetooth Low Energy radio link, and the controller thereafter transmits user-input data to the display-side device over that established radio link. This display-side BLE link uses the same technology as the source-side BLE link identified in the first limitation above (Palmer, para [0037], “The game controller 102, via the operating mode component 238, may operate in BLE mode by default in response to the player 120 pairing the game controller 102 over BLE with a BLE device 114.”; Palmer, para [0035], “The BLE device 114, using the client app 252, also functions as a receiver of controller input data sent by the game controller 102 during gameplay over a radio.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Lea’s pairing-failure recovery procedure when the controller identifies loss of its established source-side connection, and to use Palmer’s nearby display-side BLE endpoint as the recovery destination. Lea’s power-off and out-of-range conditions can prevent continued communication as well as initial pairing. Invoking recovery upon identifying that the active link is no longer available addresses that same failure without waiting for a controller restart. The controller would obtain the alternative endpoint’s pairing information and send a separate pairing request to that endpoint; an error notification to a companion device is not substituted for the request.
Doing so would predictably extend the effective operating range of the gaming experience by using an already-present nearby display device as a backup connection point. Using Lea’s disclosed BLE option for the source-side link and Palmer’s BLE link for the display-side connection would allow the controller to use its BLE capability for either destination, while retaining the appropriate pairing information for each. This is a choice of the same supported radio technology for the two links, not an assumption that different technologies satisfy the claim. When the source remains available over the image network, this would restore a path for controller input after interruption of the direct source connection. Any pairing acceptance required by the selected implementation remains available; neither reference is characterized as eliminating every user confirmation.
Regarding claim 18, which depends on claim 17, (Original) Lea in view of Palmer discloses The method of claim 17, wherein the first short-range wireless communication technology comprises Bluetooth, as Palmer further discloses that the short-range wireless communication technology used by the game controller to communicate with the display-side intermediate device is Bluetooth Low Energy, which is a Bluetooth radio technology. As explained in claim 17, BLE is also used for the source-side link in the proposed combination (Palmer, para [0037], “The game controller 102, via the operating mode component 238, may operate in BLE mode by default in response to the player 120 pairing the game controller 102 over BLE with a BLE device 114.”)
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lea (US 11,547,932 B2) in view of Palmer (US 2020/0306625 A1) and further in view of Tian (US 2016/0014545 A1).
Regarding claim 19, which depends on claim 17, (Original) even though Lea in view of Palmer teaches that the game controller initiates a Bluetooth Low Energy connection with a nearby display-side device and exchanges signaling to establish the link in the fallback sequence: (Lea, col. 16, lines 29-59, Palmer, para [0036], para [0037], para [0038]), Lea in view of Palmer does not explicitly disclose triggering the connection request in response to receiving an advertising packet broadcast by the display device.
Conversely, Lea in view of Palmer and further in view of Tian discloses The method of claim 17, further comprising transmitting the connection request to the display device in response to receiving an advertising packet from the display device because Tian teaches a Bluetooth Low Energy advertising-and-scanning mechanism in which, upon receiving an advertising packet from a particular advertiser, the receiving device responds with a packet indicating its intent to connect to that advertiser (Tian, para [0063], “the LE HID layer 212 can send a reply packet to the target Bluetooth LE HID (e.g., the Bluetooth mouse) that transmitted the advertising packet at block 406. In the reply packet, the LE HID layer 212 can indicate intent to connect to the target Bluetooth LE HID.”). Accordingly, Lea and Palmer are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 17 above.
For these reasons, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further combine the failover Bluetooth re-pairing of Lea in view of Palmer with the advertising-packet-triggered Bluetooth Low Energy connection initiation of Tian, to let the disconnected controller discover an available display endpoint before requesting a connection. Tian’s example has a host receive an advertisement from a Bluetooth HID; the proposed adaptation assigns the scanning role to the remote controller and the advertising role to the BLE-capable display. Those roles are specified, rather than equating Tian’s HID with the claimed display. Having the available endpoint advertise and the device seeking a connection respond would provide the same discovery-and-response function and avoid requests directed at an undiscovered endpoint. Any separately required pairing acceptance is retained.
Regarding claim 20, which depends on claim 19, (Original) Lea discloses The method of claim 19, further comprising transmitting the connection request to the source device in response to identifying that a connection of the remote control device with the display device is lost, as Lea further discloses that the game controller stores pairing data for previously paired gaming systems and sends a pairing request to a local gaming system based on that stored data. Those teachings supply the source-reconnection procedure used in the proposed recovery sequence; the cited passage is not asserted to expressly detect loss of a display link (Lea, col. 13, lines 41-45 “At 704, the method 700 includes storing, in the storage subsystem, gaming-system pairing data for pairing the game controller with one or more previously-paired gaming systems with which the game controller has been previously paired.”; Lea, col. 14, lines 25-28 “At 720, the method 700 includes sending, via the communication interface, a pairing request to the local gaming system using a second communication protocol based on the gaming-system pairing data for the local gaming system.”)
The recovery rationale stated for claim 17 applies in the reverse direction after the controller identifies loss of the display link. Using Lea’s retained source-device pairing data to send a new request to that source would provide another opportunity to restore controller input when the temporary display path is interrupted. This modification invokes the stored-host reconnection procedure upon identified loss; it does not assume that a stored credential guarantees a successful connection or that the source must then be in range.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang (US 2013/0179605 A1) in view of Palmer (US 2020/0306625 A1) and further in view of Giles (US 2012/0083208 A1) and further in view of Lea (US 11,547,932 B2).
Regarding claim 22, which depends on claim 1, (New) Huang in view of Palmer discloses The display device of claim 1, wherein the first image data is generated by the source device, as Palmer further discloses that the host executing the game streams the video data received at the BLE display-side device (Palmer, para [0035], “the BLE device 114 receives video game data streamed from a host computer (e.g., the client machine 106) that is executing a video game 212”).
In spite of the fact that Huang in view of Palmer and further in view of Giles teaches the four-device display path and transfer of controller pairing information over the local network: (Huang, para [0034], Palmer, para [0039], para [0040], Giles, para [0036]), Huang in view of Palmer and further in view of Giles does not explicitly disclose basing the controller’s request to the display-side device on release of the controller’s wireless connection with the source device.
Yet, Huang in view of Palmer and further in view of Giles and further in view of Lea discloses and wherein the connection request is based on a wireless connection between the remote-control device and the source device being released because Lea identifies power-off and out-of-range conditions that prevent pairing with the prior system. The combination applies that failure-recovery teaching after the controller identifies release of its existing source connection; it does not treat failed pairing as an express disclosure of release detection (Lea, col. 9, lines 4-8, “As one example, the last-paired gaming system 328 may be turned off. As another example, the last-paired gaming system 328 may be out of communication range of the game controller 200.”). Accordingly, Huang, Palmer, and Giles are combined for the reasons set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Consequently, it would have been obvious to apply Lea’s recovery procedure to the existing controller-to-source link when the controller identifies that the link has been released. Power loss or movement out of range can make an active link unavailable just as they can prevent pairing. When the source remains available over the local network, directing the controller’s subsequent pairing request to the nearby display endpoint would restore a path for user input through that display and network. This is the same application of the recovery procedure explained for claim 17 above. The proposed change is the event that invokes recovery, not an assertion that Lea expressly detects release in its failed-pairing example. It would address the existing session’s interruption without requiring the controller to await a fresh startup.
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 CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST
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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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.
/CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
Prosecution Insights