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
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 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ha et al. (US 2010/0130131 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Ha discloses:
a Bluetooth connection system (fig.1 depicts a Bluetooth connection system, see par.[0003]), comprising:
a control host (fig.1 depicts a control host, par.[0007]), comprising a transmission unit (fig.1 the cellular communication unit); and
a Bluetooth audio device used to wirelessly communicate with the transmission unit (par.[0007] which recites, in part, “audio Bluetooth hands-free device”), wherein the control host receives an instruction, then turns on the transmission unit and executes a search task to find the Bluetooth audio device around the control host (par.[0059] which teaches that the Bluetooth Terminal attempts pairing by transmitting previously stored pin codes to the found surrounding audio Bluetooth hands-free devices which were previously paired) the instruction is sent by an application program or the Bluetooth audio device (par.[0059] describes the Bluetooth Terminal which has an application program for Bluetooth pairing to send stored PIN codes to the previously paired devices),
when the Bluetooth audio device does not return a confirmation Bluetooth connection signal to the control host (par.[0060 – 0061] describes the terminal identifying whether the pairing succeeds or fails. The office interprets the fail-state as the audio device does not return a confirmation Bluetooth connection signal), the control host sends a wake-up signal to the Bluetooth audio device to start a re-pairing procedure (par.[0061] the terminal returns to step 225 and re-attempts pairing utilizing a new pin code for pairing, that is, the User Equipment equipped with Bluetooth capability sends a Wake-Up signal, e.g. “the pairing signal being sent to the un-paired audio device for re-pairing”); and
pairing with the control host by the Bluetooth audio device (fig.2b element 219 wherein the devices are successfully paired after an initial pairing failure).
Claim(s) 1 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yae et al. (US 2016/0150588 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Yae discloses:
a Bluetooth connection system (par.[0003] describes a Bluetooth connection system), comprising:
a control host (fig.1 depicts a Head Unit, which is the in vehicle Bluetooth control host), comprising a transmission unit (fig.1 the cellular communication unit of the Mobile Device receiving messages from the Head Unit); and
a Bluetooth audio device used to wirelessly communicate with the transmission unit (fig.1 and par.[0003] which teaches a mobile device which is an audio device, and par.[0005]), wherein the control host receives an instruction (fig.1 the Mobile and Head Unit transmit LMP_Version_Req and LMP_Version_Resp, these instructions initiate pairing), then turns on the transmission unit and executes a search task to find the Bluetooth audio device around the control host (fig.1 wherein the mobile device sends to the host the LMP_host_connect_request) the instruction is sent by an application program or the Bluetooth audio device (fig.1 the mobile device sends the instruction to the Head Unit, which is a host),
when the Bluetooth audio device does not return a confirmation Bluetooth connection signal to the control host (fig.1 during the analysis phase, the user of the mobile does not accept, par.[0034] wherein no response is made), the control host sends a wake-up signal to the Bluetooth audio device to start a re-pairing procedure (par.[0035] which recites, in part, “In this regard, the head unit determines that the user fails to accept pairing and transmits a message (LMP_in_rand) for requesting pairing to a Bluetooth device (BD) address of the mobile device (S150). Then, a popup menu is displayed again on the mobile device.”); and
pairing with the control host by the Bluetooth audio device (par.[0035] and fig.1 wherein the re-pairing based on the WUS the pairing can be successfully performed).
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) 2-3 and 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yae as applied to independent claims 1 and 11, in view of Chen (US 2013/0095753 A1).
Regarding claims 2 and 12, the disclosure of Yae teaches an automatic re-pairing, but may not disclose:
wherein before the control host completes pairing with the Bluetooth audio device, the control host deletes an old pairing data relevant to the Bluetooth audio device and accesses a new pairing data from the Bluetooth audio device again.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Chen teaches:
wherein before the control host completes pairing with the Bluetooth audio device, the control host deletes an old pairing data relevant to the Bluetooth audio device and accesses a new pairing data from the Bluetooth audio device again (fig.1 element 135 and element(s) 140 - 145).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Yae for re-pairing a previously paired peer device, with the deletion of previous paired information as discussed in Chen. The motivation/suggestion would have been the subsequent pairing requires different pairing data to effect pairing between peer devices, and cannot use the previously stored pairing data.
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Chen discloses:
wherein the control host pairs with the Bluetooth audio device using the new pairing data (fig.1 element 145 wherein the new pairing information is stored after the old pairing information is deleted).
Claim(s) 4-6, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yae as applied to independent claims 1 and 11, in view of Tkachenko (US 2009/0068950 A1).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, the disclosure of Yae teaches re-pairing as discussed in the claims, but may not disclose:
the control host comprises a smart selection module for switching an audio transmission mode of the Bluetooth audio device according to a scenario of use.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Tkachenko teaches:
the control host comprises a smart selection module for switching an audio transmission mode of the Bluetooth audio device according to a scenario of use (par.[0025] a switch from a hands-free profile to a A2DP profile).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Yae for re-pairing a device with the disclosure of Tkachenko for switching audio profiles. The motivation/suggestion would been that Bluetooth can be used for audio streaming and calling a different profiles provide different functionality.
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Tkachenko discloses:
a device controller, wherein the device controller wirelessly communicates with the Bluetooth audio device and switches the audio transmission mode of the Bluetooth audio device according to a scenario of use (fig.2 element 19 describes the switching function).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Tkachenko discloses:
wherein the audio transmission mode of the Bluetooth audio device comprises a hands-free profile mode and an abbreviation for advanced audio distribution profile (A2DP) mode (par.[0025] describes the hands free profile mode and the A2DP mode);
when the smart selection module determines that the Bluetooth audio device enters a call mode, the smart selection module switches the Bluetooth audio device to the hands-free profile mode (par.[0047] which describes when a phone call is indicated switching from a A2DP mode to a HFP mode);
when the smart selection module determines that the Bluetooth audio device enters a music play mode, the smart selection module or the device controller switches the Bluetooth audio device to the A2DP mode (par.[0047] describes the music play mode when music is playing, par.[0010]).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Tkachenko discloses:
wherein when the Bluetooth audio device ends the music play mode and enters the call mode, the smart selection module switches the Bluetooth audio device from the A2DP mode to the hands-free profile mode (par.[0047] which describes when a phone call is indicated switching from a A2DP mode to a HFP mode).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Tkachenko discloses:
wherein the control host comprises a control software unit, a voice call software and a music play software (fig.2 element 19 is coupled with the HFP module 18);
the control software unit is used to control the voice call software supporting the hands-free profile mode and control the music play software supporting the A2DP mode to play an audio source (fig.2 element 19 is coupled with the A2DP module 13, and is configured to switch between the two as discussed in par.[0047]).
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Tkachenko discloses:
wherein the control software unit selects to turn on the voice call software or the music play software according to a switch instruction received from the smart selection module (par.[0047] which recites, in part, “a switching function 19 between two profiles is implemented. When a phone call is indicated, the protocol is changed from Advanced Audio Distribution Profile (A2DP) 13 to Hands Free Profile (HFP) 18. Also the electronic device 20 changes its conversion 23' from Advanced Audio Distribution Profile (A2DP) to Hands Free Profile (HFP).”).
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yae as applied to independent claims 1 and 11, in view of Tkachenko (US 2009/0068950 A1) as applied to claims 4-6, in view of Levy et al. (US 2010/0045928 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, the combination of Yae and Tkachenko disclose the above claims, but may not disclose:
wherein when the Bluetooth audio device ends the call mode and enters the music play mode, the smart selection module switches the Bluetooth audio device from the hands-free profile mode to the A2DP mode.
In an analogous art, the disclosure of Levy teaches:
wherein when the Bluetooth audio device ends the call mode and enters the music play mode, the smart selection module switches the Bluetooth audio device from the hands-free profile mode to the A2DP mode (par.[0096] which teaches A2DP, and par.[0102] which recites, in part, “To make or receive a call, the call button 28 is pressed, which results in the music control buttons becoming deactivated during the call. Once the call ends, the music automatically resumes from where it left off.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the disclosures of Yae and Tkachenko, with the disclosure of Levy. The motivation/suggestion would have been to resume music from where the user previously left off.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMAAL HENSON whose telephone number is (571)272-5339. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thu: 7:30 am - 6:30 pm.
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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)272-3123. 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.
JAMAAL HENSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2411
/JAMAAL HENSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights