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 .
Detailed Action
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 1-15, either directly or through dependency, 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The independent claims introduce the limitation: “in a mode of central or peripheral”. This is understood to define the remote devices as being operable in either a central mode or a peripheral mode. However, each subsequent recitation merely recites “the central” or “the peripheral”, which is unclear.
The Examiner suggests making the following amendments:
Claim 1; lines 4-5; change “with a plurality of remote devices in a mode of central or peripheral” to read “with a plurality of remote devices, each operable in a central mode or a peripheral mode”.
Additionally, each recitation within the claims (outside of the above introduction limitation) should be amended to recite “the central mode” or “the peripheral mode” to add clarity to what the terms central and peripheral are referring to.
The term, “role”, is also supported and can be used instead of “mode”.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 15 is drawn to “a computer readable storage medium”. The Specification is ambiguous regarding the meaning of this term. Paragraph [181] of the originally filed Specification recites “the program is supplied to a device via an external network, Over the Air (OTA), or a storage medium”. There is not provided a specific list of mediums and therefore applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification and taking into account the meaning of the words in their ordinary usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP 2111), the claim as a whole covers both transitory and non-transitory media. A transitory medium does not fall into any of the four categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter).
Applicant is advised to make the following amendment to overcome this rejection: “A non-transitory computer readable storage medium”.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 5, 8, 9, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goldfish et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2023/0208892 in view of Hillyard et al. U.S. PGPUB No. 2006/0072525.
Per Claim 1, Goldfish discloses:
a wireless communication device (BT Device 140) comprising:
a communication circuit that performs communication with a plurality of remote devices (BT devices 102, 160, and 180) in a mode of central or peripheral (Paragraph 59; Controller 154, Paragraph 78; BT device 140 may be configured to assume a role of a central device),
the plurality of remote devices including one or more remote devices connected to the communication circuit (BT devices 102, 160, and 180 are communicatively connected to controller 154 via BT channel 103 (Paragraphs 46 and 47).);
a memory storing instructions (memory 184); and a processor (processor 181) that executes the instructions to:
when the one or more remote devices are connected to the communication circuit by communication of a same standard (Bluetooth communication standard 103), either accept an acquisition request for the central from the one or more remote devices and set a role of the communication circuit with respect to the one or more remote devices to the peripheral, or reject the acquisition request for the central from the one or more remote devices and set the role of the communication circuit with respect to the one or more remote devices to the central (Paragraphs 88, 89; “the role-switching mechanism may be configured to allow a BT device, which receives a role switch request, to either accept the request and proceed with the role change, or to reject the request”).
Goldfish teaches that the decision to accept or reject the request of a BT device to become the central role may be “policy-based, and/or may not be defined by the BT protocol” (Paragraph 89), but does not specifically teach the decision being made based on a number of remote devices connected to the current central role device.
However, Hillyard discloses accepting or rejecting a role switching request based on a number of connected master/central role devices (i.e. either a piconet BT setup or a scatternet BT setup) (Paragraphs 51, 52, 56, 66, and 67, Fig. 12).
- It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Hillyard’s BT role switching teachings with the role switching teachings of Goldfish because it ensures that a scatternet BT setup is supported prior to accepting a role switch between devices that would create such a setup (Paragraphs 51 and 52).
Per Claim 5, Goldfish discloses the wireless communication device according to claim 1, wherein after the communication circuit is connected to another remote device from a state in which the one or more remote devices and the communication circuit are connected, the processor executes the instructions to reject the acquisition request for the central from the another remote device (Paragraphs 89, 99; and 149 ).
Per Claim 8, Goldfish discloses the wireless communication device according to claim 1, wherein the communication circuit performs the communication in accordance with a Bluetooth (registered trademark) standard (Paragraph 211).
Per Claim 9, Goldfish discloses the wireless communication device according to claim 1, wherein the communication circuit performs communication in compliance with a first standard and a second standard in a mode of the central or the peripheral with respect to the plurality of remote devices (Paragraphs 33 and 34; Bluetooth and Bluetooth Low Energy).
Per Claim 13, Goldfish discloses the wireless communication device according to claim 9, wherein the first standard is a Bluetooth Classic standard, the second standard is a Bluetooth Low Energy standard, and the first standard and the second standard operate simultaneously in a dual mode in the same device (Paragraphs 33 and 34; Fig. 4).
Per Claim 14, please refer to the above rejection of claim 1 as the limitations are substantially similar (device vs. method embodiment), and the mapping of the references to the limitations are equally applicable.
Per Claim 15, please refer to the above rejection of claim 1 as the limitations are substantially similar (device vs. computer readable medium embodiment), and the mapping of the references to the limitations are equally applicable. Additionally, Goldfish teaches a CRM embodiment (Paragraph 231; computer-readable non-transitory storage media 802).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 6, 10, and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Per Claims 2, 3, 6, 10, and 11, Goldfish, Hillyard, and the prior art does not specifically teach upon an initial connection of the communication circuit and a role switch with a connected remote device, stopping/preventing the communication circuit from sending central role acquisition requests to other remote devices (claim 2); sending the central role acquisition request a predetermined number of times (claims 3 and 6); and the performing of the acceptance/rejection of the acquisition request based on the standards of the communication and remote devices (claims 10 and 11)
Claims 4, 7, and 12 inherit the allowable subject matter of Claims 3, 6, and10.
- Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN T MISIURA whose telephone number is (571)272-0889 - (Direct Fax: 571-273-0889). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 8-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Jung can be reached on (571) 272-3779. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/Brian T Misiura/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2175
Prosecution Insights