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 § 102
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, 3, 5, 11, 13, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a(1) as being anticipated by Crosbie (US 2002/0085719).
Referring to Claim 1, Crosbie teaches a communication system, comprising:
a first piconet unit (see paragraph 20 which shows APs as part of piconet units), comprising:
a first master element 24-4 (fig. 3);
a first slave element 26-1 (fig. 3); and
a second slave element 26-2 (fig. 3), wherein a first connection mechanism is established between the first master element and each of the first slave element and the second slave element (see connections 54-1 and 54-2A and device addresses 52-1 and 52-2 in fig. 3); and
a second piconet unit (see paragraph 20 which shows APs as part of piconet units), comprising:
a second master element 24-5 (fig. 3);
a third slave element 26-4 (fig. 3); and
a fourth slave element 26-5 (fig. 3), wherein a second connection mechanism is established between the second master element and each of the third slave element and the fourth slave element (see connections 54-4 and 54-5 and device addresses 52-4 and 52-5 in fig. 3);
wherein a wireless connection mechanism is established between the first master element and the second master element (see server 22 and connections 28-1 and 28-2 in fig. 1 which enable communications between APs);
wherein the wireless connection mechanism is different from the first connection mechanism and the second connection mechanism (see fig. 1 which shows the connections 28 between APs and server 22 different than the connections 30 between APs 24 and slave devices 26).
Claim 11 has similar limitations as claim 1.
Referring to Claims 3 and 13, Crosbie also teaches the wireless connection mechanism belonging to a Bluetooth connection (see paragraph 34 which shows the network the devices are in all in a Bluetooth network).
Referring to Claims 5 and 15, Crosbie also teaches any of the first slave element, the second slave element, the third slave element, and the fourth slave element implemented with a physiological signal sensor, a camera element, or an IMU (Inertial Measurement Unit) (see paragraph 37 which shows the slave device as mobile devices including cellular phones which are known in the art to include camera elements).
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.
Claim(s) 2, 4, 12, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosbie and Paz et al. (US 2021/0138232).
Referring to Claims 2 and 12, Crosbie does not teach the first and second connection mechanisms belonging to an HBC connection. Paz teaches the first and second connection mechanisms belonging to an HBC connection (see paragraph 69 which shows master and slave communications in a piconet and fig. 4a which shows the communications between a hand held mobile and a head mounted device both of which are connected to a human body). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Paz to the device of Crosbie in order to provide more reliable communications between devices attached to a person.
Referring to Claims 4 and 14, Paz also teaches any of the first master element and the second master element is implemented with an HMD (Head Mounted Display) (see paragraph 70 which shows a headset as a master and paragraph 132 which shows a headset as a device with a display). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Paz to the device of Crosbie in order to provide more reliable communications between devices attached to a person.
Claim(s) 6-10 and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosbie in view of Shaffer et al. (US 2016/0219358).
Referring to Claims 6 and 16, Crosbie does not teach a third connection mechanism established between the first slave element and the second slave element, and the third connection mechanism is different from the wireless connection mechanism. Shaffer teaches a third connection mechanism established between the first slave element and the second slave element, and the third connection mechanism is different from the wireless connection mechanism (see fig. 2 which shows two devices connected to the body establishing a connection with each other independent of any remote device further noting that establishing a connection between two mobile slave devices is well known in the art). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Shaffer to the device of Crosbie in order to conserve power during operation.
Referring to Claims 7 and 17, Shaffer also teaches a fourth connection mechanism is established between the third slave element and the fourth slave element, and the fourth connection mechanism is different from the wireless connection mechanism (see fig. 2 which shows two devices connected to the body establishing a connection with each other independent of any remote device where a skilled artisan would be able to implement the communication between slave devices of Shaffer to the slave devices of Crosbie without affecting operation further noting that establishing a connection between two mobile slave devices is well known in the art).
Referring to Claims 8 and 18, Shaffer also teaches the third and fourth connection mechanisms belonging to an HBC connection (see earbuds in fig. 2 connected to the human body and in communication with each other).
Referring to Claims 9 and 19, Shaffer also teaches if the second slave element has better communication quality than the first slave element, relaying a first data from the first slave element to the first master element by the second slave element (see paragraph 10 which shows the earbud with the stronger connection to the source assuming the role of master and paragraph 39 which shows the data from the source relayed from the master to slave device).
Referring to Claims 10 and 20, Shaffer also teaches if the fourth slave element has better communication quality than the third slave element, relaying a second data from the third slave element to the second master element by the fourth slave element (see paragraph 10 which shows the earbud with the stronger connection to the source assuming the role of master and paragraph 39 which shows the data from the source relayed from the master to slave device).
Claim(s) 21 and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crosbie (US 2002/0085719) in view of Crosbie (US 7,126,937).
Referring to Claims 21 and 22, Crosbie (‘719) does not teach the first master element and second master element capable of directly communicating with each other by using the wireless connection mechanism. Crosbie (‘937) teaches the first master element and second master element capable of directly communicating with each other by using the wireless connection mechanism (see col. 5, lines 58-62 which shows the direct wireless connection between master access points 24-1, 24-2, and 24-3 as also shown in fig. 1 where the direct connection is shown in connection 33). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide the teachings of Crosbie (‘937) to the device of Crosbie (‘719) in order to conserve power by involving less devices to transmit and receive signals.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 21 and 22 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant's arguments filed 7/15/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argued that Crosbie (‘719) does not teach claims 1 and 11 because the access points of Crosbie are not directly connected to each other. Claims 1 and 11 teach a wireless connection, NOT a direct wireless connection. The independent claims currently do not state any specifics stating that the master elements directly communicate with each other without using any elements therebetween. Without these specifics, wireless connection by way of a server is still a wireless connection and therefore, Crosbie (‘719) still teaches claims 1 and 11.
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 EUGENE YUN whose telephone number is (571)272-7860. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 5712727867. 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.
/EUGENE YUN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights