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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted on 11/04/2024 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Objections
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities:
On line 2 of claim 9, replace “the slave device” with -- the master device --.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a changer configured to use a fact that there is a detection in the detector as a trigger to change a Connection Interval for Bluetooth (registered trademark) Low Energy” in claim 1 with corresponding structures be found in par [0030] and [0047]-[0049]; “the changer is configured to return a value of the Connection Interval to a value that is before the change is made” in claim 5 with corresponding structures be found in par [0029] and [0067]-[0069]; and “a determiner configured to perform a determination that there is an erroneous detection” in claim 7 with corresponding structures be found in par [0032] and [0063]-[0064].
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1 and 4-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kang et al. (US 20210044680 A1).
Consider claim 1, Kang discloses communication device (read as digital pen 201 operating as Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) slave 1020, with processor 320, memory 330, communication circuit 390 and trigger circuit 398, figures 3 and 15, par [0065], [0071] and [0231]) comprising:
a detector configured to detect a signal input that comes from outside (read as triggering circuit 398 using its button or sensor circuit to receive an externally originated input, generate a corresponding electric signal or data value, and supply a trigger signal; processor 320 detects the corresponding predefined event, figures 3 and 15, par [0073] and [0232]); and
a changer configured to use a fact that there is a detection in the detector as a trigger to change a Connection Interval for Bluetooth (registered trademark) Low Energy (read as processor 320 detecting the predefined event and using the detection to initiate the adaptive BLE update through communication circuit 390; the processor 320 sends the desired Connection Interval value, receives the update indication and applies the Connection Interval at the specified instant, figure 15, par [0232]-[0237]).
Consider claim 4, as applied to claim 1 above, Kang discloses a transmitter configured to transmit a value of the Connection Interval, the value being changed by the changer, to an external device by using a BLE communication (read as communication circuit 390 transmitting LL_CONNECTION_PARAM_REQ, which carries the desired changed Connection Interval value, from digital pen 201 to external master 1010 through BLE; processor 320 then applies the Connection Interval through the same update procedure above, figure 15, par [0235]-[0237] and [0244]).
Consider claim 5, as applied to claim 1 above, Kang discloses wherein the changer is configured to return a value of the Connection Interval to a value that is before the change is made, in a case where there is no detection of the signal input in the detector for a predetermined period of time (read as processor 320 monitoring the specific operation as predefined event, temporarily changing the BLE Connection Interval when that event occurs and repeating the update procedure when the operation remains unused for a preset time; the absence of the monitored event during this period (present time) corresponds to no detection of the same input under broadest reasonably interpretation; the repeated update restores the existing or initial Connection Interval, which is the value used before the temporary change, figure 15, par [0232]-[0233], [0241] and [0249]-[0250]).
Consider claim 6, Kang discloses a communication system that includes a master device and a slave device communicable to each other by using a Bluetooth (registered trademark) Low Energy communication (read as master 1010 and slave 1020 maintaining a Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) connection and exchanging connection control messages, figure 10, par [0108] and [0171]),
the master device comprising: a first detector configured to detect a signal input that comes from outside (read as master 1010 containing input device 150, sensor module 176 and processor 120; the input device 150 receives an outside use command, the sensor module 176 generates a single or data value for an external state and processor 120 detects the resulting predefined event, figures 1 and 11, par [0044], [0048] and [0184]-[0185]); and
a first communicator configured to use a fact that there is a detection in the first detector as a trigger to transmit, to the slave device by using the BLE communication, a change instruction for a value of a Connection Interval for BLE (read as processor 120 responding to the detected predefined event by directing wireless communication module 192 to send the desired Connection Interval value to the slave 120 and then transmit LL_CONNECTION_UPDATE_IND, which instructs the slave to apply the determined BLE Connection Interval, figure 11, par [0186] and [0193]-[0194]).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20210044680 A1) in view of Avery et al. (US 20210027199 A1).
Consider claim 2, as applied to claim 1 above, Kang discloses wherein the detector comprises a sensor configured to detect an external environmental state (read as the trigger circuit 398 containing motion sensor that senses an external environmental stage and generates a corresponding electrical signal or data value and supplies the sensor input trigger recognized by processor 320, figures 3 and 15, par [0073] and [0232]) but does not specifically disclose detecting a vibration applied from the outside.
Nonetheless, Avery discloses accelerometer tap vibration sensing, which wireless audio device 104 containing accelerometer sensor 210, where a user’s externally applied tap produces a particular vibration that the accelerometer detects, figure 2, par [023] and [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Avery into the teachings of Kang, to configure Kang’s trigger circuit 398 using Avery’s accelerometer tap vibration sensor, in order to allow Kang’s digital pen to recognize a user tap through a non-touch motion sensor and initiate its adaptive BLE update without dedicated touch sensor hardware (see par [0013] and [0039] of Avery).
Claims 3 and 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al. (US 20210044680 A1) in view of Kotz et al. (US 20170143206 A1).
Consider claim 3, as applied to claim 1 above, Kang discloses wherein the detector comprises a sensor configured to detect an external environmental state (read as the trigger circuit 398 containing motion sensor that senses an external environmental stage and generates a corresponding electrical signal or data value and supplies the sensor input trigger recognized by processor 320, figures 3 and 15, par [0073] and [0232]) but does not specifically disclose detecting an utterance that has occurred at the outside.
Nonetheless, Kotz discloses speech activity determination, which a microphone equipped Amulet whose processor 106 determines when the wearer is speaking from microphone data; and thus, detects occurrence of an externally originated utterance, figure 6, par [0084]-[0085].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kotz into the teachings of Kang, to configure Kang’s digital pen microphone input using Kotz’s speech activity determination, in order to allow Kang’s digital pen to recognize spoken user activity as a predefined event through its existing audio input path.
Consider claim 7, as applied to claim 6 above, Kang discloses wherein the first communicator is configured to transmit connection parameter request to the slave device by using the BLE communication, and receive a corresponding connection parameter response from the slave device by using the BLE communication (read as master processor 120 and wireless communication module 192 transmitting a request to BLE connected slave 1020 and receiving the slave’s corresponding response through the BLE communication link, figure 1, par [0186]-[0187], and the master device further includes a determiner configured to perform a determination of the responding slave’s identify or attribute (read as master processor 120 acting as a determiner that processes information associated with the received slave response and determines the responding slave’s identity, type or device attribute figure 11, par [0188]) but does not specifically disclose transmit a master request for slave vibration detection information and receive of the slave vibration detection information as the slave’s response; and determination that there is an erroneous detection on a basis of a result of the detection in the first detector and the vibration detection information received from the slave device.
Nonetheless, Kotz discloses Amulet 100 polling a wearable node through body area network radio 124, after which the addressed node responds with its sensor data (figure 4, par [0113]); in the accelerometer embodiment, the returned sensed motion readings corresponding to vibration detection information under broadest reasonable interpretation; processor 106 compares those remote sensed motion readings with the Amulet’s local accelerometer readings and marks the inconsistent node data as suspect when a discrepancy is detected, figure 5, par [0062]-[0063] and [0079].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Kotz into the teachings of Kang, to configure Kang’s master event processing using Kotz’s remote motion polling and local comparison, in order to reduce reliance on inconsistent motion event data by allowing Kang’s master compare its local result with the connected slave’s result before acting on the event (see par [0062] and [0069] of Kotz).
Consider claim 8, as applied to claim 7 above, Kang, as modified by Kotz, discloses wherein the slave device includes: a second detector configured to detect a signal input that comes from the outside (read as BLE slave 1020 containing triggering circuit 398 using its button or sensor circuit to receive an externally originated input, generate a corresponding electric signal or data value, and supply a trigger signal; processor 320 detects the corresponding predefined event, figures 3 and 15, par [0073] and [0232]); and
a second communicator configured to use a fact that there is a detection in the second detector as a trigger to transmit, to the master device by using the BLE communication, a change request for the value of the Connection Interval for the BLE (read as BLE slave 1020 with processor 320 detecting the predefined event and using the detection to initiate the adaptive BLE update through communication circuit 390 and sending LL_CONNECTION_PARAM_REQ, carrying the desired BLE Connection Interval value, to the master 1010, figure 13, par [0206]-[0210] and [0216]-[0217]).
Consider claim 9, as applied to claim 8 above, Kang, as modified Kotz, discloses wherein the second communicator is configured to receive a connection parameter request message from the master device by using the BLE communication, and transmit a corresponding connection parameter response message to the master device by using the BLE communication (read as slave 1020 receiving a BLE request from master 1010 and returning the corresponding response to the master through the same BLE communication link, figure 10, par [0171] and [0175]-[0176]) but does not specifically disclose receive a vibration detection information transmission request and transmit a result of the detection in the second detector as a response to the vibration detection information transmission request to the master device as response.
Nonetheless, Kotz further discloses responsive remote sensor reporting, which a wearable node receiving poll from Amulet 100 and responding with its available sensor data; when the node uses its accelerometer, that response carriers the node’s mechanical motion result, which corresponds to the second detector’s vibration result under broadest reasonable interpretation, figure 4, par [0062] and [0113].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further incorporate the teachings of Kotz into the teachings of Kang, which modified by Kotz, to configure Kang’s slave response exchange using Kotz’s responsive motion sensor reporting, in order to provide Kang’s master with current remote motion information for comparison with its local sensor result and identify inconsistent event data (see par [0062] and [0079] of Kotz).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Junpeng Chen whose telephone number is (571) 270-1112. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday, 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., 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, Anthony S Addy can be reached on 571-272-7795. 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).
/Junpeng Chen/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights