DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . 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.
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.
Claims 1-11, 13, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ngo et al. (US Pub. 2020/0366248), hereinafter referred to as Ngo, in view of Rinne et al. (US Pub. 2012/0163429), hereinafter referred to as Rinne, further in view of Kessler et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0124763), hereinafter referred to as Kessler
Referring to claim 1, Ngo discloses a communications method for a target device in a communications system with a single-wire serial bus (Fig. 2, single-wire bus 36), comprising: accessing the single-wire serial bus in the communications system, wherein the communications system includes a plurality of devices (fig. 2, peer devices P1-N) connected via the single-wire bus, no master device is set in the communications system (the single-wire bus 36 to function based on a P2P bus architecture, as opposed to the conventional master-slave bus architecture, [0034]), and the plurality of devices is configured to obtain a use right of the single-wire bus by competition (a single-wire P2P bus contention and arbitration mechanism employed by the single-wire P2P bus apparatus 32 that allows the peer devices 34(1)-34(N) to contend for access to the single-wire bus 36, [0035]); determining whether the target device has a highest data sending priority among at least one first candidate device, wherein the at least one first candidate device includes all devices to send data in the communications system at a current moment (peer devices 34(1)-34(N) may assert a bus contention indication(s)…only one of the selected peer devices (also referred to as “bus winning peer device”) with a highest bus access priority can gain access to the single-wire bus, [0033]), each device in the communications system corresponds to a feature code, and the feature code represents a priority of the device (the peer devices 34(1)-34(M) are assigned a number of bus access priorities P.sub.1-P.sub.N, [0032]); and executing, based on a result of the determining, a sending mode or a silent mode of the target device, wherein in the sending mode, the target device sends target data to the single-wire bus within a first duration and stops sending the target data to the single-wire bus when the first duration ends (the first peer device 34(1) will become the bus-winning peer device due to the highest bus access priority, [0045]; bus winning peer device can start communicating one or more protocol telegrams 50 at time T.sub.X…After the bus winning peer device completes communicating the protocol telegrams 50, [0047-0048]), in the silent mode, the target device is in a data receiving state or an idle state within the first duration (all of the second peer devices 34(2)-34(N) are required to refrain from initiating telegram communication over the single-wire bus 36, [0045]).
While Ngo discloses the feature code in teaching the priorities, Ngo is silent regarding the specific embodiment and therefore does not appear to explicitly disclose at least one first level that is consecutive in time, and a quantity of bits at the first level is positively correlated with the priority. Additionally, while Ngo teaches durations of sending, the sending durations appear to be dictated by the number of protocol telegrams to be communicated and not a “preset duration”. Therefore, Ngo does not appear to explicitly disclose the sending within a first preset duration and stops sending the target data to the bus when the first preset duration ends. As well, while Ngo teaches peer-to-peer communication of telegrams, Ngo is silent regarding the architecture of the telegram and therefore does not appear to explicitly disclose the telegram “specifies a receiving device”.
However, in a similar endeavor of priority communication, Rinne teaches slaves winning arbitration based on the value of the slave address and the slave address is a quantity of bits (DSS device address (decimal 127=binary 1111111), [0066]) and priority going to the slave with the lowest address (see [0074-0075]), which in combination with Ngo teaches at least one first level that is consecutive in time, and a quantity of bits at the first level is positively correlated with the priority.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ngo and Rinne before him or her, to substitute the priority identification anticipated by Ngo with the device address scheme of Rinne because Ngo contained arbitration scheme which differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of an explicit use of priority correlated bits, Rinne demonstrates the use of address bits being correlated to priority to win an arbitration scheme was known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substitute one priority determination information for another and the result would have been a predictable bus arbitration scheme.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143.I.B).
Furthermore, in a similar endeavor of peer communication, Kessler discloses sending within a first preset duration and stops sending the target data to the bus when the first preset duration ends (each slave device transmits data in a designated time slot, [0221]), and specifying a receiving device (node addressing mode (NAM) field…normal (i.e., unicast to a specific slave device specified in the NODE address field), [0202]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ngo, Rinne, and Kessler before him or her, to modify the peer communication system of Ngo to include the time slots and addressing of Kessler in order to coordinate communication between devices.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to coordinate communication among slave devices (Kessler: [0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ngo, Rinne, and Kessler to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claim 2, Ngo discloses the executing of the sending mode or the silent mode of the target device includes: determining that the result of the determining is that the target device has the highest data sending priority; and executing the sending mode (the first peer device 34(1) will become the bus-winning peer device due to the highest bus access priority, [0045]; bus winning peer device can start communicating one or more protocol telegrams 50 at time T.sub.X, [0047]).
As to claim 3, Ngo discloses the executing of the sending mode or the silent mode of the target device includes: determining that the result of the determining is that the target device does not have the highest data sending priority; and executing the silent mode (all of the second peer devices 34(2)-34(N) are required to refrain from initiating telegram communication over the single-wire bus 36, [0045]).
As to claim 4, Ngo discloses wherein in the sending mode, the target device sends an end code (fig. 1B, Bus Park) to the single-wire bus at a target moment (fig. 1B, after frame check sequence), to instruct at least one second candidate device in the communications system to each determine whether the target device has the highest data sending priority among the at least one second candidate device, wherein the at least one second candidate device includes all devices to send data in the communications system at the target moment (After the bus winning peer device completes communicating the protocol telegrams 50, the single-wire bus 36 returns to the fast-charge state and the idle state. In this regard, any of the peer devices 34(1)-34(N) may start asserting the bus contention indication again, [0048]).
While the communication architecture of Ngo includes an end of the command , “ target moment is an end moment”, the end moment of the sending durations of Ngo appear to be dictated by the number of protocol telegrams to be communicated and not a “first preset duration.” Therefore, Ngo does not appear to explicitly disclose and end moment of the first preset duration or earlier.
However, in a similar endeavor of peer communication, Kessler discloses and end moment of a first present duration (each slave device transmits data in a designated time slot, [0221]).
The suggestion/motivation to combine remains as indicated above.
As to claim 5, Ngo discloses the determining whether the target device has the highest data sending priority among the at least one first candidate device includes: broadcasting the feature code of the target device to the single-wire bus, wherein when the target device broadcasts the feature code of the target device, another device of the at least one first candidate device synchronously broadcasts its feature code (the peer devices 34(1)-34(N) are configured to broadcast a number of bus request telegrams 42(1)-42(N), respectively, in a sequential order determined by the bus access priorities P.sub.1-P.sub.N. In, [0042]), after completion of broadcasting the feature code of the target device, receiving a next bit signal transmitted via the single-wire bus (fig. 3B, closing SOS 52, [0050]), and determining, based on the next bit signal, whether the target device has the highest data sending priority among the at least one first candidate device (Each of the peer devices 34(1)-34(N) may be configured to monitor and/or decode all of the bus request telegrams 42(1)-42(N) to help determine whether any peer device 34(1)-34(N) with a higher bus access priority has requested access the single-wire bus 36, [0045]).
As to claim 6, Ngo discloses the single-wire bus is at a second level in an idle state (fig. 3A-B, IDLE).
As to claim 7, while Ngo teaches the use of a feature code, Ngo alone does not appear to explicitly disclose the exact embodiment of the feature code further includes a start code, and the start code is located before the at least one first level; and feature codes corresponding to different devices include a same start code. However, Ngo depicts a command structure that “includes a start code and the start code is located before the at least one first level” (fig. 1B, SOS 24 located before the slave address); and as demonstrated in the rejections above, Rinne teaches a priority feature code corresponding to the device address. Therefore the combination would result in the SOS and arbitration slave address conforming to the claimed feature code format, and the teaching Ngo that each device has a corresponding priority would in combination with Rinne teach “feature codes corresponding to different devices include a same start code.” The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious remains as indicated above.
As to claim 8, the combination of Ngo, Rinne, and Kessler discloses determining, based on the next bit signal, whether the target device has the highest data sending priority among the at least one first candidate device includes: determining that the next bit signal is at the second level; and determining that the target device has the highest data sending priority among the at least one first candidate device (Rinne: consider a system consisting of 3 DSS slaves with addresses 10, 99, and 125… the lowest address will win arbitration …the sequence then is DSS slave #10 will win arbitration…DSS slave #99 will win arbitration over #125…the last slave device DSS slave #125 will win arbitration in cycle #127 ; [0074-0079]). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious remains as indicated above.
As to claim 9, the combination of Ngo, Rinne, and Kessler discloses wherein the determining, according to the next bit signal, whether the target device has the highest data sending priority among the at least one first candidate device includes: determining that the next bit signal is at the first level; and determining that the target device does not have the highest data sending priority among the at least one first candidate device (Rinne: consider a system consisting of 3 DSS slaves with addresses 10, 99, and 125… the lowest address will win arbitration …the sequence then is DSS slave #10 will win arbitration…DSS slave #99 will win arbitration over #125…the last slave device DSS slave #125 will win arbitration in cycle #127 ; [0074-0079]). The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious remains as indicated above.
As to claim 10, the combination of Ngo, Rinne, and Kessler discloses the first level is a high level and the second level is a low level (NOTE: Rinne teaches binary bit addresses, 1 the high level, and 0 being the low level; the first and second level are arbitrary as long as the information is conveyed and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that assigning the first and second level as claimed or inverted would have been an obvious alternative embodiments ).
As to claim 11, the combination of Ngo, Rinne, and Kessler discloses the first level is a low level and the second level is a high level (NOTE: Rinne teaches binary bit addresses, 1 the high level, and 0 being the low level; the first and second level are arbitrary as long as the information is conveyed and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that assigning the first and second level as claimed or inverted would have been an obvious alternative embodiments ).
As to claim 13, Ngo discloses the priority corresponding to each device in the communications system is a preset fixed priority, and different devices correspond to different priorities (peer devices 34(1)-34(M) are assigned a number of bus access priorities P.sub.1-P.sub.N, respectively, with P.sub.1 being the highest bus access priority and P.sub.N being the lowest bus access priority (P.sub.1>P.sub.2>P.sub.3> . . . >P.sub.N), [0032]).
Referring to claim 16, Ngo discloses a device for accessing a communications system with a single-wire serial bus (Fig. 2, single-wire bus 36), the device to: access the single-wire serial bus in the communications system, wherein the communications system includes a plurality of devices (fig. 2, peer devices P1-N) connected via the single-wire bus, no master device is set in the communications system (the single-wire bus 36 to function based on a P2P bus architecture, as opposed to the conventional master-slave bus architecture, [0034]), and the plurality of devices is configured to obtain a use right of the single-wire bus by competition (a single-wire P2P bus contention and arbitration mechanism employed by the single-wire P2P bus apparatus 32 that allows the peer devices 34(1)-34(N) to contend for access to the single-wire bus 36, [0035]), determine whether a target device has a highest data sending priority among at least one first candidate device, wherein the at least one first candidate device includes all devices to send data in the communications system at a current moment (peer devices 34(1)-34(N) may assert a bus contention indication(s)…only one of the selected peer devices (also referred to as “bus winning peer device”) with a highest bus access priority can gain access to the single-wire bus, [0033]), each device in the communications system corresponds to a feature code, and the feature code represents a priority of the device (the peer devices 34(1)-34(M) are assigned a number of bus access priorities P.sub.1-P.sub.N, [0032]), and execute, based on a result of the determining, a sending mode or a silent mode of the target device, wherein in the sending mode, the target device sends target data to the single-wire bus within a first duration, and stops sending the target data to the single-wire bus when the first duration ends (the first peer device 34(1) will become the bus-winning peer device due to the highest bus access priority, [0045]; bus winning peer device can start communicating one or more protocol telegrams 50 at time T.sub.X…After the bus winning peer device completes communicating the protocol telegrams 50, [0047-0048]), and in the silent mode, the target device is in a data receiving state or an idle state within the first duration (all of the second peer devices 34(2)-34(N) are required to refrain from initiating telegram communication over the single-wire bus 36, [0045]).
Ngo discloses a mobile device embodiment, but is silent regarding the specific architecture of a processor, instruction storage, and processor execution of instruction; therefore, Ngo does not appear to explicitly disclose at least one storage medium, storing at least one set of instructions and configured to communicate with another device; and at least one processor communicatively connected to the at least one storage medium, wherein during operation, the at least one processor executes the at least one set of instructions.
While Ngo discloses the feature code in teaching the priorities, Ngo is silent regarding the specific embodiment and therefore does not appear to explicitly disclose at least one first level that is consecutive in time, and a quantity of bits at the first level is positively correlated with the priority. Additionally, while Ngo teaches durations of sending, the sending durations appear to be dictated by the number of protocol telegrams to be communicated and not a “preset duration”. Therefore, Ngo does not appear to explicitly disclose the sending within a first preset duration and stops sending the target data to the bus when the first preset duration ends. As well, while Ngo teaches peer-to-peer communication of telegrams, Ngo is silent regarding the architecture of the telegram and therefore does not appear to explicitly disclose the telegram “specifies a receiving device”.
However, in a similar endeavor of priority communication, Rinne teaches slaves winning arbitration based on the value of the slave address and the slave address is a quantity of bits (DSS device address (decimal 127=binary 1111111), [0066]) and priority going to the slave with the lowest address (see [0074-0075]), which in combination with Ngo teaches at least one second level that is consecutive in time, and a quantity of bits at the second level is positively correlated with the priority.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ngo and Rinne before him or her, to substitute the priority identification anticipated by Ngo with the device address scheme of Rinne because Ngo contained arbitration scheme which differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of an explicit use of priority correlated bits, Rinne demonstrates the use of address bits being correlated to priority to win an arbitration scheme was known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substitute one priority determination information for another and the result would have been a predictable bus arbitration scheme.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143.I.B).
Furthermore, in a similar endeavor of peer communication, Kessler discloses sending within a first preset duration and stops sending the target data to the bus when the first preset duration ends (each slave device transmits data in a designated time slot, [0221]), and specifying a receiving device (node addressing mode (NAM) field…normal (i.e., unicast to a specific slave device specified in the NODE address field), [0202]). As well, Kessler discloses a processor, instruction storage, and processor execution of instruction embodiment, see [0290].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ngo, Rinne, and Kessler before him or her, to modify the peer communication system of Ngo to include the time slots and addressing of Kessler in order to coordinate communication between devices.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to coordinate communication among slave devices (Kessler: [0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ngo, Rinne, and Kessler to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claim 17, Ngo discloses wherein in the sending mode, the target device sends an end code (fig. 1B, Bus Park) to the single-wire bus at a target moment (fig. 1B, after frame check sequence), to instruct at least one second candidate device in the communications system to each determine whether the target device has the highest data sending priority among the at least one second candidate device, wherein the at least one second candidate device includes all devices to send data in the communications system at the target moment (After the bus winning peer device completes communicating the protocol telegrams 50, the single-wire bus 36 returns to the fast-charge state and the idle state. In this regard, any of the peer devices 34(1)-34(N) may start asserting the bus contention indication again, [0048]).
While the communication architecture of Ngo includes an end of the command , “ target moment is an end moment”, the end moment of the sending durations of Ngo appear to be dictated by the number of protocol telegrams to be communicated and not a “first preset duration.” Therefore, Ngo does not appear to explicitly disclose and end moment of the first preset duration or earlier.
However, in a similar endeavor of peer communication, Kessler discloses and end moment of a first present duration (each slave device transmits data in a designated time slot, [0221]).
The suggestion/motivation to combine remains as indicated above.
As to claim 18, Ngo discloses the determining whether the target device has the highest data sending priority among the at least one first candidate device includes: broadcasting the feature code of the target device to the single-wire bus, wherein when the target device broadcasts the feature code of the target device, another device of the at least one first candidate device synchronously broadcasts its feature code (the peer devices 34(1)-34(N) are configured to broadcast a number of bus request telegrams 42(1)-42(N), respectively, in a sequential order determined by the bus access priorities P.sub.1-P.sub.N. In, [0042]), after completion of broadcasting the feature code of the target device, receiving a next bit signal transmitted via the single-wire bus (fig. 3B, closing SOS 52, [0050]), and determining, based on the next bit signal, whether the target device has the highest data sending priority among the at least one first candidate device (Each of the peer devices 34(1)-34(N) may be configured to monitor and/or decode all of the bus request telegrams 42(1)-42(N) to help determine whether any peer device 34(1)-34(N) with a higher bus access priority has requested access the single-wire bus 36, [0045]).
Referring to claim 20, Ngo discloses a communications system, comprising: a single-wire serial bus (Fig. 2, single-wire bus 36), and a plurality of devices (fig. 2, peer devices P1-N) connected to the single-wire bus, wherein no master device is set in the communications system (the single-wire bus 36 to function based on a P2P bus architecture, as opposed to the conventional master-slave bus architecture, [0034]), and the plurality of devices obtain a use right of the single-wire bus by competition (a single-wire P2P bus contention and arbitration mechanism employed by the single-wire P2P bus apparatus 32 that allows the peer devices 34(1)-34(N) to contend for access to the single-wire bus 36, [0035]), and when the communications system is in operation, a target device of the plurality of devices executes the following steps: accessing the single-wire serial bus in the communications system, wherein the communications system includes a plurality of devices connected via the single-wire bus, no master device is set in the communications system, and the plurality of devices is configured to obtain a use right of the single-wire bus by competition; determining whether the target device has a highest data sending priority among at least one first candidate device, wherein the at least one first candidate device includes all devices to send data in the communications system at a current moment (peer devices 34(1)-34(N) may assert a bus contention indication(s)…only one of the selected peer devices (also referred to as “bus winning peer device”) with a highest bus access priority can gain access to the single-wire bus, [0033]), each device in the communications system corresponds to a feature code, and the feature code represents a priority of the device (the peer devices 34(1)-34(M) are assigned a number of bus access priorities P.sub.1-P.sub.N, [0032]); and executing, based on a result of the determining, a sending mode or a silent mode of the target device, wherein in the sending mode, the target device sends target data to the single-wire bus within a first duration, and stops sending the target data to the single-wire bus when the first duration ends (the first peer device 34(1) will become the bus-winning peer device due to the highest bus access priority, [0045]; bus winning peer device can start communicating one or more protocol telegrams 50 at time T.sub.X…After the bus winning peer device completes communicating the protocol telegrams 50, [0047-0048]), and in the silent mode, the target device is in a data receiving state or an idle state within the first duration (all of the second peer devices 34(2)-34(N) are required to refrain from initiating telegram communication over the single-wire bus 36, [0045]).
While Ngo discloses the feature code in teaching the priorities, Ngo is silent regarding the specific embodiment and therefore does not appear to explicitly disclose at least one first level that is consecutive in time, and a quantity of bits at the first level is positively correlated with the priority. Additionally, while Ngo teaches durations of sending, the sending durations appear to be dictated by the number of protocol telegrams to be communicated and not a “preset duration”. Therefore, Ngo does not appear to explicitly disclose the sending within a first preset duration and stops sending the target data to the bus when the first preset duration ends. As well, while Ngo teaches peer-to-peer communication of telegrams, Ngo is silent regarding the architecture of the telegram and therefore does not appear to explicitly disclose the telegram “specifies a receiving device”.
However, in a similar endeavor of priority communication, Rinne teaches slaves winning arbitration based on the value of the slave address and the slave address is a quantity of bits (DSS device address (decimal 127=binary 1111111), [0066]) and priority going to the slave with the lowest address (see [0074-0075]), which in combination with Ngo teaches at least one second level that is consecutive in time, and a quantity of bits at the second level is positively correlated with the priority.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ngo and Rinne before him or her, to substitute the priority identification anticipated by Ngo with the device address scheme of Rinne because Ngo contained arbitration scheme which differed from the claimed invention by the substitution of an explicit use of priority correlated bits, Rinne demonstrates the use of address bits being correlated to priority to win an arbitration scheme was known in the art, and one of ordinary skill in the art could have substitute one priority determination information for another and the result would have been a predictable bus arbitration scheme.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (see MPEP 2143.I.B).
Furthermore, in a similar endeavor of peer communication, Kessler discloses sending within a first preset duration and stops sending the target data to the bus when the first preset duration ends (each slave device transmits data in a designated time slot, [0221]), and specifying a receiving device (node addressing mode (NAM) field…normal (i.e., unicast to a specific slave device specified in the NODE address field), [0202]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ngo, Rinne, and Kessler before him or her, to modify the peer communication system of Ngo to include the time slots and addressing of Kessler in order to coordinate communication between devices.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to coordinate communication among slave devices (Kessler: [0097]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ngo, Rinne, and Kessler to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 12 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ngo, Rinne, and Kessler, as applied to claims 1-11, 13, 16-18, and 20 above, further in in view of Koike et al. (US Pub. No. 2019/0196998), hereinafter referred to as Koike.
As to claim 12, the combination of Ngo, Rinne, and Kessler does not appear to explicitly disclose adjusting the priority if the target device does not obtain the use right of the single-wire bus within a second preset duration, wherein an adjusted priority is higher than the priority before the adjustment, and the second preset duration is greater than the first preset duration.
However, Koike discloses adjusting the priority if the target device does not obtain the use right of the bus within a second preset duration, wherein an adjusted priority is higher than the priority before the adjustment (When the number of times (number of defeat times) the request packet 41_1 of the bus master 11_1 is rejected exceeds the predetermined threshold value…the adding circuit 77 adds a predetermined value to the priority (Mst.priority) of the request packet 41_1 to adjust the priority, and outputs the adjusted priority (Mod.priority) to the arbitration circuit, [0065]), and the second preset duration is greater than the first preset duration (the priority adjustment circuit 73 shown in FIG. 4 is initialized (step S1). At this time, the count value (i.e., the number of defeat times) of the counter 78 is set to “0.”…the threshold value supplied from the table 75 is “7” and the number of defeat times is “0,” which does not satisfy “threshold value<number of defeat times”; [0071-0073]).
Ngo, Kessler, and Koike are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor, bus arbitration.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ngo, Kessler, and Koike before him or her, to modify the bus arbitration of Ngo to include the priority adjustment of Koike in order to avoid extensive latency in accessing the bus.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve latency of buss access (Koike: [0096]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ngo, Kessler, and Koike to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
As to claim 14, the combination of Ngo, Rinne, Kessler, and Koike discloses the priority corresponding to each device in the communications system is related to data currently to be sent by the device (Koike: the priority of each request packet is set between “0” and “15.”, [0070]). The suggestion/motivation to combine remains as indicated above.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the combination of Ngo, Rinne, and Kessler, as applied to claims 1-11, 13, 16-18, and 20 above, further in in view of Blum et al. (US Pub. No. 2013/0215374), hereinafter referred to as Blum.
As to claim 15 and 19, while Ngo teaches the system relates to mobile device embodiments and Kessler teaches audio relate embodiments, the combination of Ngo, Rinne, and Kessler does not appear to explicitly disclose, the plurality of devices includes at least two of a headphone holder, a left headphone, and a right headphone.
However, Blum discloses the plurality of devices includes at least two of a headphone holder (docking station, [0018]), a left headphone, and a right headphone (fig. 13, left temple…speaker 229…right temple…speaker 239, [0123]).
Ngo, Rinne, Kessler, and Blum are analogous art because they are from the same field endeavor, single wire device interconnects.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having the teachings of Ngo, Rinne, Kessler, and Blum before him or her, to implement the mobile device of Ngo as the headphone embodiment of Blum because the headphone embodiment is representative of a mobile device and the prior art of Ngo, Rinne, Kessler, and Blum demonstrate that the prior art included each element claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference; one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each element merely performs the same function as it does separately, which is the bus arbitration scheme applies functionally the same to a variety of mobile device system; one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the combination would result in a predictable bus arbitration among headphone components connected to a bus.
The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. KSR, 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395 (see MPEP2143.I.A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Ngo, Rinne, Kessler, and Blum to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the amendments to independent claims 1, 16, and 20, and the teaching of Rinne with respect to the claimed “feature code”, the Applicant asserts:
“…Rinne discloses "slaves winning arbitration" based on values of slave address, the lower the value of the slave address is, the higher the priority is. The "slave address" in Rinne is a binary address with a specific value. Accordingly, the winner can be determined based on "values" of the binary addresses. In contrast, the "feature code" recited in amended claim 1 includes "at least one level," the at least one level is consecutive in time and the winner is determined based on "a quantity of bits at the level." Specifically, the quantity of bits at the level is positively correlated with the priority, that is, the larger the quantity of bits is, the higher the priority is. It can be clearly seen that the binary address in Rinne is totally different from the "at least one level consecutive in time" recited in amended claim 1, and the binary value-based comparison manner is also different from the comparison manner based on "quantity of bits at the level."”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Rinne teaches priority goes to the slave with the lowest address and give various examples of the addresses used. In paragraphs [0066] and [0074] Rinne gives examples of the addresses, 10 represented by 0101 in binary, 99 represented by 1100011 in binary, 125 represented by 1111101 in binary, and 127 represented by 111111 in binary. The binary representations feature binary code that “includes at least one first level that is consecutive in time” represented by the binary levels of ‘0’ or ‘1’, and the higher the address number the greater the quantity of the level ‘1’ and the lower the address the greater the quantity of the level ‘0’, and as the priority correlates to the address value, the “quantity of bits” at the levels of ‘0’ or ‘1’ “is positively correlated with the priority”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The US Pub. No. 2023/0229616 of Ngo et al. is pertinent to single-wire interfacing and device priority identifiers.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
The examiner has cited particular column, line, and/or paragraph numbers in the references as applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in its entirety as potentially teaching of all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner.
The examiner requests, in response to this office action, support be shown for language added to any original claims on amendment and any new claims. That is, indicate support for newly added claim language by specifically pointing to page(s) and line number(s) in the specification and/or drawing figure(s). This will assist the examiner in prosecuting the application. When responding to this office action, applicant is advised to clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present, in view of the state of art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. He or she must also show how the amendments avoid such references or objections. See 37 C.F.R. 1.111(c).
Applicants seeking an interview with the examiner, including WebEx Video Conferencing, are encouraged to fill out the online Automated Interview Request (AIR) form (http://www.uspto.gov/patent/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.html). See MPEP §502.03, §713.01(11) and Interview Practice for additional details.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC T OBERLY whose telephone number is (571)272-6991. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 800am-430pm (MT).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Dr. Henry Tsai can be reached on (571) 272-4176. 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 Center. For more information about the Patent Center, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov/. Should you have questions on access to the Patent Center system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERIC T OBERLY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2184
Prosecution Insights