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 § 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) 1-2, 5, 13-16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dash et al. (US Publication 2022/0191887 A1) further in view of Linsky et al. (US Publication 2023/0056166 A1).
In regards to claims 1 and 15, Dash et al. (US Publication 2022/0191887 A1) teaches, an apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: establish a first radio link for short range communications using a first protocol (see figure 6, paragraph 100; The method 600 may include a block 602, at which a first set of one or more parameters of communication between a first radio and a first STA may be detected) and a second radio link for short range communications using a second protocol (see paragraph 101; At block 604, a second set of one or more parameters of communication between a second radio and a second STA may be detected), wherein the first and second radio links share an antenna (see paragraph 63; see figure 4, the radios may share at least of portion of the antennas); process traffic load information for the first radio link, the information being dependent on configuration parameters for the first radio link (see paragraph 100; the first set of one or more parameters may be detected on a set of one or more overlapping channels. In these and other implementations, the first radio may be configured to communicate with the first STA according to a first communication protocol; see paragraph 94 for low traffic and paragraph 97 for high traffic (which reads on load level)); determine, based on the information, time domain resources available for second data traffic on the second radio link; based on the time domain resources available for the second data traffic on the second radio link (see paragraph 103; At block 608, how the first radio communicates on the first set of channels and how the second radio communicates on the second set of channels may be directed. For example, the CMC 426 may reserve particular shared channels for communication within the first wireless network. As another example, the CMC 426 may instruct the second radio to stop transmitting and instruct the first radio to start transmitting on particular shared channels).
In further regards to claims 1 and 15, Dash fails to teach, determine a fragmentation size for packets sent on the second radio link; and generate transmissions to exchange the second data traffic in the time domain resources available for the second data traffic on the second radio link in fragmented packets according to the determined fragmentation size.
Linsky et al. (US Publication 2023/0056166 A1) however teaches, determine a fragmentation size for packets sent on the second radio link and generate transmissions to exchange the second data traffic in the time domain resources available for the second data traffic on the second radio link in fragmented packets according to the determined fragmentation size (see paragraph 133; On the transmit path, the context broadcast networking core functional layer 304 may receive an input stream of one or more data elements and/or QoS indications, organize data elements based on the QoS indications, apply account-based security and privacy, select and configure transport offloads, and/or fragment data element sets into PDUs using a maximum transport unit (MTU) size).
Dash and Linsky are both related to multiple protocol transmissions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the use of fragment transmissions as taught by Linsky into the teachings of Dash. The motivation to do so would be to improve communications by allocating resource according to prioritized QoS requirements.
In regards to claims 2 and 16, Dash teaches, wherein the processing circuitry executes a first module related to the first radio link and a second module related to the second radio link, and wherein the information related to a transmission and reception pattern for first data traffic on the first radio link is received by the second module from the first module (see paragraph 103; the CMC 426 may reserve particular shared channels for communication within the first wireless network. As another example, the CMC 426 may instruct the second radio to stop transmitting and instruct the first radio to start transmitting on particular shared channels).
In regards to claims 5 and 19, Dash teaches, wherein the fragmentation size depends on the configuration parameters for the first radio link including a type of the first radio link (see paragraph 66; the WLAN radio 424, the cellular radio 428, and/or the WPAN radio 430 may be configured to use channels in different sized segments; see paragraph 100; a first set of one or more parameters of communication between a first radio and a first STA may be detected. In some implementations, the first set of one or more parameters may be detected on a set of one or more overlapping channels. In these and other implementations, the first radio may be configured to communicate with the first STA according to a first communication protocol).
Claim(s) 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dash et al. (US Publication 2022/0191887 A1) further in view of Linsky et al. (US Publication 2023/0056166 A1) and further in view of Gupta et al. (US Publication 2024/0397399 A1).
In regards to claims 6 and 20, Dash teaches, in paragraph 17; “The wireless networks may communicate using shared channels (e.g., a set of one or more overlapping channels) but according to different communication protocols (e.g., protocols). Example wireless networks include WLANs, WPANs, cellular networks, Bluetooth networks, ZigBee networks, and Thread networks. In some implementations, the shared channels may be within a 2.4 gigahertz (GHz) industrial, scientific, and medical (ISM) band.”
However, Dash and Linsky fails to teach wherein the first radio link is a Bluetooth link and the type of the Bluetooth link comprises one of a synchronous connection-oriented (SCO) Bluetooth link, an enhanced synchronous connection-oriented (eSCO) Bluetooth link, a first audio Bluetooth link for one hearing aid, or a second audio Bluetooth link for two hearing aids.
Gupta et al. (US Publication 2024/0397399 A1) however teaches, wherein the first radio link is a Bluetooth link and the type of the Bluetooth link comprises one of a synchronous connection-oriented (SCO) Bluetooth link, an enhanced synchronous connection-oriented (eSCO) Bluetooth link (see paragraph 121; The wireless device 810 and the peripheral device 820 may establish a Bluetooth connection with each other based on one or more of the Bluetooth Specifications provided by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (the Bluetooth SIG). The Bluetooth connection may be any suitable Bluetooth-compliant including (but not limited to) an Asynchronous Connection-Less (ACL) link, a Logical Link Control and Adaptation Protocol (L2CAP) link, an Advanced Audio Distribution Profile (A2DP) link, a Synchronous Connection-Oriented (SCO) link, or an Isochronous (ISO) link), a first audio Bluetooth link for one hearing aid, or a second audio Bluetooth link for two hearing aids (see paragraph 62; Examples of the one or more peripheral devices 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, or 114 may include a cellular phone, a smart phone, a SIP phone, a STA, a laptop, a PC, a desktop computer, a PDA, a satellite radio, a global positioning system, a multimedia device, a video device, a digital audio player, a camera, a game console, a tablet, a smart device, a wearable device (such as a smart watch, wireless headphones, etc.), a vehicle, an electric meter, a gas pump, a toaster, a thermostat, a hearing aid).
Gupta, Dash and Linsky all relate to wireless short range communications.
Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the use of SCO links for peripheral healthcare devices as taught by Gupta. The motivation to do so would be to allow for QoS allocation for adequate transmissions for health care peripheral devices.
In regards to claim 13, Dash teaches, An apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: establish a radio link for short range communications using a wireless protocol (see figure 4 and paragraph 52; The WPAN 429 may include a Bluetooth network, a ZigBee network, or a Thread network); process data traffic on the radio link from a source device, the data traffic transmitted by the source device in a transmission pattern with a fragmentation size (see paragraph 103; the CMC 426 may reserve particular shared channels for communication within the first wireless network. As another example, the CMC 426 may instruct the second radio to stop transmitting and instruct the first radio to start transmitting on particular shared channels; see paragraph 66; the cellular radio 428, and/or the WPAN radio 430 may be configured to use channels in different sized segments.).
In further regards to claim 13, Dash fails to teach, detect the fragmentation size and the transmission pattern; and generate, for transmission on the radio link to the source device, transmissions in accordance with the detected fragmentation size and the transmission pattern.
Linsky et al. (US Publication 2023/0056166 A1) however teaches, detect the fragmentation size and the transmission pattern; and generate, for transmission on the radio link to the source device, transmissions in accordance with the detected fragmentation size and the transmission pattern (see paragraph 133; On the transmit path, the context broadcast networking core functional layer 304 may receive an input stream of one or more data elements and/or QoS indications, organize data elements based on the QoS indications, apply account-based security and privacy, select and configure transport offloads, and/or fragment data element sets into PDUs using a maximum transport unit (MTU) size).
Dash and Linsky are both related to multiple protocol transmissions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to incorporate the use of fragment transmissions as taught by Linsky into the teachings of Dash. The motivation to do so would be to improve communications by allocating resource according to prioritized QoS requirements.
In regards to claim 14, Dash teaches, wherein the wireless protocol is Thread (see figure 4 and paragraph 52; The WPAN 429 may include a Bluetooth network, a ZigBee network, or a Thread network).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4, 7-12 and 17-18 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.
In regards to claims 3 and 17, the cited prior art fails to teach either individually or in combination, updated traffic load information for the first radio link and based on the updated traffic load information, adapts the fragmentation size for packets sent on the second radio link.
Prior art Goyal et al. (US Publication 2025/0203598 A1) teaches, the wireless communication 910 may begin with the wireless device 701 transmitting PDU1 to the peripheral device 702 over the Bluetooth link during the first sub-event SE1. The wireless device 701 does not receive an ACK from the peripheral device 702 during sub-event SE1. In some instances, the peripheral device 702 may send a NACK frame, to the wireless device 701, indicating one or more PDUs (or fragments of PDUs) that were not received or successfully decoded by the peripheral device 702 (see paragraph 154).
In regards to claims 4 and 18, the cited prior art fails to teach either individually or in combination, when the time domain resources available for the second data traffic on the second radio link does not comprise contiguous time domain resources sufficient to support a minimum packet size on the second radio link, the second data traffic is not exchanged until updated traffic load information for the first radio link is received and the updated traffic load information indicates updated time domain resources available for the second data traffic on the second radio link comprise contiguous time domain resources sufficient to support a minimum packet size on the second radio link.
Prior art Dass et al. (US Publication 2025/0081238 A1) teaches, a process for coexistence between Wi-Fi and Thread communications. After the user device is attached to a Thread/WI-FI network, process 700 proceeds either to 704 in scenarios where the user device supports CSL or to 706 in scenarios where the user device does not support CSL. At 704, Thread firmware configures a CSL IE with the values x and y to indicate the first and second time windows. The values x and y can be determined based on BLUETOOTH (BT) load information. Then, at 708, the Thread communications session is given or assumed to have higher priority than the BLUETOOTH communications session during the first time window, and yet a priority-based arbitration is performed between BLUETOOTH and Thread to determine which communications session should be performed during the second time window. In other words, the user device is configured to favor the Thread communications session over the BLUETOOTH communications session during the first time window, but to arbitrate between the two communications sessions based on priority during the second time window (see paragraph 84).
In regards to claim 7, the cited prior art fails to teach either individually or in combination, wherein the transmission and reception pattern for the first data traffic is dependent on a number of retransmissions configured for the Bluetooth link, wherein the number of retransmissions configured for the SCO Bluetooth link is 0 or 1, the number of retransmissions configured for the eSCO Bluetooth link is 0, 1, 2 or 3, the number of retransmissions configured for the first audio Bluetooth link is 0 or 1, and the number of retransmissions configured for the second audio Bluetooth link is 0 or 1.
Prior art Linsky (US Publication 2019/0223192 A1) teaches, the BT protocol implemented by the BT radio interface may support an eSCO logical transport. An eSCO logical transport may provide a symmetric or asymmetric point-to-point link (an eSCO link) between a master device and a slave device using time slots reserved for BT communications, and a retransmission window following the reserved time slots. Because retransmissions may be facilitated using the retransmission window, an eSCO link may be useful in audio streaming and/or voice use cases because a dropped audio or voice packet may be retransmitted, and hence, the probability of properly receiving a dropped data packet may be increased (see paragraph 57).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAY P PATEL whose telephone number is (571)272-3086. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:30-6.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-8786. 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.
/JAY P PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466
