DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 8/29/2024. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending and are examined.
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 .
Priority/Benefit
Applicant’s priority claim is hereby acknowledged of PRO 63/579,882 08/31/2023, which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Examiner’s Note – Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 16 overcome the prior art and would otherwise be allowable if incorporated into the base claim along with any intervening claims.
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 of this title, 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) 1-2, 4, 10-12, 14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar (US 2004/0037323 A1), in view of Santhanam (US 2008/0139232 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Kumar teaches:
“An apparatus comprising processing circuitry (Kumar, Fig. 10, ¶ 175 depict and describe circuitry to perform the method steps) configured to: generate, for transmission to a wireless communication device via a short-range communication protocol (Kumar, ¶ 4 and 7 teaches inquiry messages using Bluetooth), a request related to a short-range communication operation (Kumar, Figs 1-2 and ¶ 33 53-55 and 95 teaches sending inquiry request messages to discover other Bluetooth devices for connection); select a timeout period for the short-range communication operation (Kumar, ¶ 40, 46-49 teaches setting the timeout parameters for the Bluetooth discovery operation); and initiate a timer set to the timeout period (Kumar, ¶ 75, 95-96 and 101 initializing the timer when an inquiry message is sent), wherein the wireless communication device is to respond to the request prior to expiration of the timer (Kumar, ¶ 123-126 the timer expiring and the device being set back into inquiry mode to send another inquiry message)”.
Kumar does not, but in related art, Santhanam ¶ 54 teaches creating a probe message retransmission timeout timer which is based upon a zero mean random process.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kumar and Santhanam, to modify the Bluetooth device discovery mechanism of Kumar to include the process to use randomized timeout as taught in Santhanam. The motivation to do so would be, as stated by Santhanam, ¶ 16-17 and 42-43, dynamic adjustment of the retransmission timeout value results in significant reductions in delay.
Regarding claims 2 and 12, Kumar and Santhanam teaches:
“The apparatus of claim 1 (Kumar and Santhanam teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: process, based on signaling received from the wireless communication device, a response to the request related to the short-range communication operation (Kumar, Figs 1-2 and ¶ 33 53-55 and 95 teaches sending inquiry request messages to discover other Bluetooth devices for connection), wherein the response is received prior to expiration of the timer (Kumar, ¶ 98 the inquiry message is received within the allotted time period)”.
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Kumar and Santhanam teaches:
“The apparatus of claim 1 (Kumar and Santhanam teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the short-range communication protocol comprises a Bluetooth protocol (Kumar, ¶ 4 and 7 teaches inquiry messages using Bluetooth)”.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, Kumar and Santhanam teaches:
“The apparatus of claim 1 (Kumar and Santhanam teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the processing circuitry implements a host controller for the short-range communication protocol and the randomized timeout period is selected by the host controller (Kumar, ¶ 95 the device running the timeouts is the host controller. Santhanam ¶ 54 teaches creating a probe message retransmission timeout timer which is based upon a zero mean random process)”.
Claim(s) 3 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Santhanam in view of Luo (US 2019/0281449 A1).
Regarding claims 3 and 13, Kumar and Santhanam teaches:
“The apparatus of claim 1 (Kumar and Santhanam teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: determine the timer has expired prior to receiving a response to the request related to the short-range communication operation (Kumar, ¶ 123-126 teaches the timer expiring with no response)”.
Kumar and Santhanam does not, but in related art, Luo teaches:
“discontinue the short-range communication operation (Luo, ¶ 68 teaches ending the communication after the timeout is reached in a handshake operation between wireless devices)”. Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kumar, Luo and Santhanam, to modify the Bluetooth device discovery mechanism of Kumar and Santhanam to include the use of the method to end communications after a timeout as taught in Luo. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 5 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Santhanam in view of Kyou (US 2018/0183919 A1).
Regarding claims 5 and 15, Kumar and Santhanam teaches:
“The apparatus of claim 4 (Kumar and Santhanam teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above)”.
Kumar and Santhanam does not, but in related art, Kyou teaches:
“wherein the short-range communication operation is a Bluetooth Service Discovery Protocol (SDP) operation (Kyou, ¶ 66, 68 and 103 teaches the Bluetooth service discovery protocol in terms of the timeouts that occur)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kumar, Kyou and Santhanam, to modify the Bluetooth device discovery mechanism of Kumar and Santhanam to include the use of the Bluetooth service discovery protocol as taught in Kyou. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 7 and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Santhanam in view of Lee (US 2015/0296416 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 17, Kumar and Santhanam teaches:
“The apparatus of claim 1 (Kumar and Santhanam teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above)”.
Kumar in view of Santhanam does not, but in related art, Lee teaches:
“wherein the short-range communication protocol comprises a Wi-Fi Direct protocol (Lee, ¶ 114 group owner negation timeouts using the Wi-Fi Direct protocol)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kumar, Lee and Santhanam, to modify the Bluetooth device discovery mechanism of Kumar and Santhanam to include the use of the Wi-Fi Direct protocol as taught in Lee. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 8 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Santhanam in view of Gao (US 2017/0295516 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Kumar and Santhanam teaches:
“The apparatus of claim 1 (Kumar and Santhanam teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the randomized timeout period is selected (Kumar, ¶ 40, 46-49 teaches setting the timeout parameters for the Bluetooth discovery operation)”.
Kumar in view of Santhanam does not, but in related art, Gao teaches:
“based on a minimum timeout period and a maximum timeout period defined for the short-range communication operation (Gao, ¶ 28 and 33 teaches using a minimum and a maximum timeout value in a wireless system)”.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kumar, Gao and Santhanam, to modify the Bluetooth device discovery mechanism of Kumar and Santhanam to include the minimum and maximum timeout values for transmission timeouts. The motivation to do so constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar in view of Santhanam in view of Schussmann (US 2017/0164192 A1).
Regarding claims 9 and 19, Kumar and Santhanam teaches:
“The apparatus of claim 1 (Kumar and Santhanam teaches the limitations of the parent claims as discussed above), wherein the processing circuitry implements a host for the short-range communication protocol and the randomized timeout period is selected by the host (Kumar, ¶ 95 the device running the timeouts is the host controller. Santhanam ¶ 54 teaches creating a probe message retransmission timeout timer which is based upon a zero mean random process)”.
Kumar and Santhanam does not, but in related art, Schussmann ¶ 31 teaches a host processor in a Bluetooth system.
Before applicant’s earliest effective filing it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Kumar, Schussmann and Santhanam, to modify the Bluetooth device discovery mechanism of Kumar and Santhanam to include the Bluetooth host processor as taught in Schussmann. The motivation to do so
constitutes applying a known technique to known devices and/or methods ready for improvement to yield predictable results.
Conclusion
In the case of amending the claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: See PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Stephen T Gundry whose telephone number is (571) 270-0507. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM (EST).
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, Joseph Hirl can be reached on (571) 272-3685. 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.
/STEPHEN T GUNDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2435