DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Application No. 18929915 filed on October 28th, 2024. Claims 1 - 20 are subject to examination.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 - 4, 9, 11 – 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Young et al. (US 20210306103 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Young teaches
An electronic device comprising:
a communication circuit for Bluetooth low energy (BLE); (Young: [0048] As illustrated in FIG 2., source device 102 includes source circuitry 108… [0054] as discussed above, the first audio device 104 and second audio device 106 are configured to receive an isochronous data stream…. using LE Audio, see paragraphs [0048] and [0054]) [Examiner’s note: The source circuitry in 108 corresponds to the communication circuit. The first and second audio device receive an isochronous data stream using LE audio, which indicates that source circuitry 108 is configured for Bluetooth low energy (BLE).]
and
at least one processor coupled with the communication circuit; (Young: [0048] As illustrated in Fig 2, source device 102 includes source circuitry 108. Some source circuitry 108 includes a source processor 110, see paragraph [0048]) [Examiner’s note: Source circuitry 108 corresponds to the communication circuit. A source processor 110 corresponds to the one processor coupled with the communication circuit.]
the at least one processor configured to:
identify a connected hybrid stream (CHS) group (CHG) event comprising a CHS event, (Young: [0057] As illustrated in FIGS 4 and 5, source device 102 is configured to send or broadcast isochronous data stream 118 in isochronous intervals 144. Each isochronous interval 144 includes a plurality of subintervals, see paragraph [0057]) [Examiner’s note: Isochronous data stream 118 corresponds to the connected hybrid stream (CHS) group (CHG) event. The underlying concept behind a connected hybrid stream group event is an isochronous data stream. These isochronous data streams comprise subevents (subintervals) where the device sends and receives data within the intervals. Isochronous interval 144 corresponds to comprising a CHS event because isochronous interval 144 includes a plurality of subintervals.]
identify at least one subevent included in the CHS event, (Young: [0057] As illustrated in Figs 4 and 5…Each isochronous interval 144 includes a plurality of subintervals…where each respective subinterval 152 – 160 are arranged sequentially within isochronous audio data stream 118, see paragraph [0057]) [Examiner’s note: The isochronous interval 144 corresponds to the CHS event and the plurality of subintervals corresponds to the at least one subevent. Young later says that each respective subinterval is arranged sequentially within an isochronous audio data stream. This particular arrangement of subevents can help with identifying subevents as there is an expectation of how the events are organized.]
transmit a data packet within a period of a first subevent among the at least one subevent, (Young: [0058] As illustrated, the time necessary to transmit first packet 148A utilizes only a portion of first subinterval, see paragraph [0058]) [Examiner’s note: Young tells us that only a portion of the first subinterval is used to transmit a first packet. This corresponds to the period of a first subevent used to transmit a data packet.]
and
receive a feedback signal corresponding to the data packet within the period of the first subevent (Young: [0058] … the remaining time within first subinterval 152 corresponds with a predetermined waiting time period where the source device 102 waits to receive an acknowledgement (ACK) see paragraph [0058]) [Examiner’s note: The acknowledgement (ACK) corresponds to the feedback signal. The remaining time within the first subinterval 152 corresponds to the period of the first subevent.]
Regarding claim 2, Young teaches
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the feedback signal comprises at least one acknowledgement (ACK) or at least one negative ACK (NACK) corresponding to each payload included in the data packet. (Young: [0058] …the source device 102 waits to receive an acknowledgement (ACK) 162 indicating that, e.g., first audio device 104 has received first packet 148A or a negative acknowledgement (NACK) 164 indicating that, e.g., first audio device 104 has not received first packet 148A, see paragraph 0058) [Examiner’s note: The acknowledgement (ACK) 162 corresponds to the acknowledgement (ACK) in the claim limitation. The negative acknowledgement (NACK) 164 corresponds to the negative ACK (NACK) in the claim limitation. Packet 148A corresponds to the data packet from the claim limitation.]
Regarding claim 3, Young teaches
The electronic device of claim 2, wherein the at least one processor is further configured to transmit a payload corresponding to the at least one NACK within a period of a second subevent among the at least one subevent in case that the feedback signal comprises the at least one NACK. (Young: [0060] Should first audio device 104 indicate a failure to receive first packet 148 A within first subinterval 152 , e.g., via acknowledgement 162 or via a negative acknowledgement 164 , source device 102 is configured to send a first repeat packet 166 A during first repeat subinterval 154, see paragraph [0060]) [Examiner’s note: The negative acknowledgement 164 corresponds to the NACK within claim 3. Young also outlines the same behavior outlined in the claim where if a first subinterval receives a NACK, then the source device will send a first repeat packet during the first repeat subinterval (second subevent) which is after the first subinterval.]
Regarding claim 4, Young teaches
The electronic device of claim 3, wherein the first subevent and the second subevent are included in a channel over a same frequency band. (Young: [0058] … It should be appreciated that isochronous audio data stream 118 and/or source device 102 and first audio device 104 can utilize any frequency or channel for first frequency F 1 of the active channels or frequencies in an agreed upon or negotiated channel map, see paragraph [0058]) [Examiner’s note: Young is saying that all of the devices communicating with each other can all use any frequency or channel in an agreed upon map. This means that they can all be included in a channel over a frequency band.]
Regarding claim 9, Young teaches
The electronic device of claim 1, wherein the CHG event comprises one or more CHS events, and
wherein, among the one or more CHS events, a period of a first CHS event corresponds to a first external device and a period of a second CHS event corresponds to a second external device. (Young: [0055] Isochronous audio data stream 118 includes data relating to a first audio stream 146A and a second audio stream 146B. In one example, first audio stream 146A corresponds to a right-ear audio data stream…Similarly, second audio stream 146B corresponds to a left-ear audio data stream, see paragraph [0055]) [Examiner’s note: Isochronous audio data stream 118 corresponds to the CHG event from the claim. First audio stream 146A and second audio stream 146B correspond to the CHS events that correspond to a first external device and a second external device.]
Regarding claim 11, Young teaches
A method performed by an electronic device, the method comprising:
identifying a connected hybrid stream (CHS) group (CHG) event comprising a CHS event; (Young: [0057] As illustrated in FIGS 4 and 5, source device 102 is configured to send or broadcast isochronous data stream 118 in isochronous intervals 144. Each isochronous interval 144 includes a plurality of subintervals, see paragraph [0057]) [Examiner’s note: Isochronous data stream 118 corresponds to the connected hybrid stream (CHS) group (CHG) event. The underlying concept behind a connected hybrid stream group event is an isochronous data stream. These isochronous data streams comprise subevents (subintervals) where the device sends and receives data within the intervals. Isochronous interval 144 corresponds to comprising a CHS event because isochronous interval 144 includes a plurality of subintervals.]
identifying at least one subevent included in the CHS event; (Young: [0057] As illustrated in Figs 4 and 5…Each isochronous interval 144 includes a plurality of subintervals…where each respective subinterval 152 – 160 are arranged sequentially within isochronous audio data stream 118, see paragraph [0057]) [Examiner’s note: The isochronous interval 144 corresponds to the CHS event and the plurality of subintervals corresponds to the at least one subevent. Young later says that each respective subinterval is arranged sequentially within an isochronous audio data stream. This particular arrangement of subevents can help with identifying subevents as there is an expectation of how the events are organized.]
transmitting a data packet within a period of a first subevent among the at least one subevent; (Young: [0058] As illustrated, the time necessary to transmit first packet 148A utilizes only a portion of first subinterval, see paragraph [0058]) [Examiner’s note: Young tells us that only a portion of the first subinterval is used to transmit a first packet. This corresponds to the period of a first subevent used to transmit a data packet.]
and
receiving a feedback signal corresponding to the data packet within the period of the first subevent. (Young: [0058] … the remaining time within first subinterval 152 corresponds with a predetermined waiting time period where the source device 102 waits to receive an acknowledgement (ACK), see paragraph [0058]) [Examiner’s note: The acknowledgement (ACK) corresponds to the feedback signal. The remaining time within the first subinterval 152 corresponds to the period of the first subevent.]
Regarding claim 12, Young teaches
The method of claim 11, wherein the feedback signal comprises at least one acknowledgement (ACK) or at least one negative ACK (NACK) corresponding to each payload included in the data packet. (Young: [0058] …the source device 102 waits to receive an acknowledgement (ACK) 162 indicating that, e.g., first audio device 104 has received first packet 148A or a negative acknowledgement (NACK) 164 indicating that, e.g., first audio device 104 has not received first packet 148A, see paragraph [0058]) [Examiner’s note: The acknowledgement (ACK) 162 corresponds to the acknowledgement (ACK) in the claim limitation. The negative acknowledgement (NACK) 164 corresponds to the negative ACK (NACK) in the claim limitation. Packet 148A corresponds to the data packet from the claim limitation.]
Regarding claim 13, Young teaches
The method of claim 12, further comprising transmitting a payload corresponding to the at least one NACK within a period of a second subevent among the at least one subevent in case that the feedback signal comprises the at least one NACK. (Young: [0060] Should first audio device 104 indicate a failure to receive first packet 148 A within first subinterval 152 , e.g., via acknowledgement 162 or via a negative acknowledgement 164 , source device 102 is configured to send a first repeat packet 166 A during first repeat subinterval 154, see paragraph [0060]) [Examiner’s note: The negative acknowledgement 164 corresponds to the NACK within claim 13. Young also outlines the same behavior outlined in the claim where if a first subinterval receives a NACK, then the source device will send a first repeat packet during the first repeat subinterval (second subevent) which is after the first subinterval.]
Regarding claim 14, Young teaches
The method of claim 1, wherein the first subevent and the second subevent are included in a channel over a same frequency band. (Young: [0058] … It should be appreciated that isochronous audio data stream 118 and/or source device 102 and first audio device 104 can utilize any frequency or channel for first frequency F 1 of the active channels or frequencies in an agreed upon or negotiated channel map, see paragraph [0058]) [Examiner’s note: Young is saying that all of the devices communicating with each other can all use any frequency or channel in an agreed upon map. This means that they can all be included in a channel over a frequency band.]
Regarding claim 19, Young teaches
The method of claim 11, wherein the CHG event comprises one or more CHS events, and
wherein, among the one or more CHS events, a period of a first CHS event corresponds to a first external device and a period of a second CHS event corresponds to a second external device (Young: [0055] Isochronous audio data stream 118 includes data relating to a first audio stream 146A and a second audio stream 146B. In one example, first audio stream 146A corresponds to a right-ear audio data stream…Similarly, second audio stream 146B corresponds to a left-ear audio data stream, see paragraph [0055]) [Examiner’s note: Isochronous audio data stream 118 corresponds to the CHG event from the claim. First audio stream 146A and second audio stream 146B correspond to the CHS events that correspond to a first external device and a second external device.]
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 5, 7, 15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 20210306103 A1) in view of Kaiping et al. (US 2020112863 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Young teaches,
The electronic device of claim 1, but fails to explicitly teach
wherein a protocol data unit (PDU) of the data packet comprises information on at least one of a more data (MD) indicator, a rate indicator (RI) field, or a flush timeout (FT) value.
However, Kaiping teaches wherein a protocol data unit (PDU) of the data packet comprises information on at least one of a more data (MD) indicator, a rate indicator (RI) field, or a flush timeout (FT) value. (Kaiping; [0082] data packet…may have…a protocol data unit (PDU)…which may include…more data (MD), see paragraph [0082]) [Examiner’s note: Kaiping uses portions of the data packet to store information relevant to antenna information including continuous tone extension (CTE) period, which was mentioned in paragraph [0023]. Young mentions the usage of data packets but does not specify any additional information that should be included in these data packets. Kaiping specifies additional information that can be included in the data packets that is relevant to their claimed invention]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of this invention, to combine Young and Kaiping to identify events and specify a PDU with a More Data indicator (Kaiping; [0018], [0023], and [0082]).
Regarding claim 7, Young-Kaiping teaches
The electronic device of claim 5, wherein a number of the at least one subevent included in the CHS event is determined based on the MD indicator. (Kaiping: [0082] data packet…may have…a protocol data unit (PDU)…which may include…more data (MD), see paragraph [0082]) [Examiner’s note: Kaiping uses portions of the data packet to store information relevant to antenna information including continuous tone extension (CTE) period, which was mentioned in paragraph [0023]. Young can be used to count the number of subevents and mentions the usage of data packets but does not specify any additional information that should be included in these data packets (such as using a More Data field in a data packet to determine the number of subevents in the CHS event). Kaiping specifies additional information that can be included in the data packets that is relevant to their claimed invention]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of this invention, to combine Young and Kaiping to identify events and store additional information in a More Data indicator of a PDU of a data packet to determine a number of the at least one subevent included in the CHS event(Kaiping; [0018], [0023], and [0082]).
Regarding claim 15, Young teaches
The method of claim 11, but fails to explicitly teach
wherein a protocol data unit (PDU) of the data packet comprises information on at least one of a more data (MD) indicator, a rate indicator (RI) field, or a flush timeout (FT) value.
However, Kaiping teaches wherein a protocol data unit (PDU) of the data packet comprises information on at least one of a more data (MD) indicator, a rate indicator (RI) field, or a flush timeout (FT) value. (Kaiping; [0082] data packet…may have…a protocol data unit (PDU)…which may include…more data (MD), see paragraph [0082]) [Examiner’s note: Kaiping uses portions of the data packet to store information relevant to antenna information including continuous tone extension (CTE) period, which was mentioned in paragraph [0023]. Young mentions the usage of data packets but does not specify any additional information that should be included in these data packets. Kaiping specifies additional information that can be included in the data packets that is relevant to their claimed invention]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of this invention, to combine Young and Kaiping to identify events and specify a PDU with a More Data indicator (Kaiping; [0018], [0023], and [0082]).
Regarding claim 17, Young-Kaiping teaches
The method of claim 15, wherein a number of the at least one subevent included in the CHS event is determined based on the MD indicator. (Kaiping: [0082] data packet…may have…a protocol data unit (PDU)…which may include…more data (MD), see paragraph [0082]) [Examiner’s note: Kaiping uses portions of the data packet to store information relevant to antenna information including continuous tone extension (CTE) period, which was mentioned in paragraph [0023]. Young can be used to count the number of subevents and mentions the usage of data packets but does not specify any additional information that should be included in these data packets (such as using a More Data field in a data packet to determine the number of subevents in the CHS event). Kaiping specifies additional information that can be included in the data packets that is relevant to their claimed invention]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of this invention, to combine Young and Kaiping to identify events and store additional information in a More Data indicator of a PDU of a data packet to determine a number of the at least one subevent included in the CHS event (Kaiping; [0018], [0023], and [0082]).
Claim 6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 20210306103 A1) and Kaiping et al. (US 2020112863 A1) in view of Weinrib et al. (US 2023171331 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Young-Kaiping teaches
The electronic device of claim 5, but fails to explicitly teach
wherein a length of a payload of the data packet is determined based on the RI field.
However, Weinrib teaches wherein a length of a payload of the data packet is determined based on the RI field. (Weinrib: [0032] …the preamble may have a size of approximately one or two bytes according to the modulation rate of the data… [0035] …for example, in the case of the 1 M modulation rate, the peripheral device 220 or the central device 210 may process approximately 7 bytes rather than 10 or 11 bytes in the data packet, see paragraphs [0032] and [0035]) [Examiner’s note: Weinrib also states “[0036] FIG. 6 is a block diagram of the header (of the PDU) …the header may be partitioned…. into a length field 670… [0037] The length field 670 may indicate the size of the payload (the size of the payload in the PDU that is a part of the data packet).” Weinrib teaches us that we can have a rate indicating field that modifies the size of data processed in our data packet, which thus modifies the length of our payload in the data packet. Weinrib says this is beneficial because it reduces the amount of data that needs to be processed based on rate indicators and gives us the benefit of lower power consumption.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Young-Kaiping with Weinrib to include a rate indicator field that modifies the length of a payload in a data packet to gain the benefit of lower power consumption (Weinrib: [0014], [0015], [0032], and [0035]).
Regarding claim 16, Young-Kaiping teaches
The method of claim 15, but fails to explicitly teach
wherein a length of a payload of the data packet is determined based on the RI field.
However, Weinrib teaches wherein a length of a payload of the data packet is determined based on the RI field. (Weinrib: [0032] …the preamble may have a size of approximately one or two bytes according to the modulation rate of the data… [0035] …for example, in the case of the 1 M modulation rate, the peripheral device 220 or the central device 210 may process approximately 7 bytes rather than 10 or 11 bytes in the data packet, see paragraphs [0032] and [0035]) [Examiner’s note: Weinrib also states “[0036] FIG. 6 is a block diagram of the header (of the PDU) …the header may be partitioned…. into a length field 670… [0037] The length field 670 may indicate the size of the payload (the size of the payload in the PDU that is a part of the data packet).” Weinrib teaches us that we can have a rate indicating field that modifies the size of data processed in our data packet, which thus modifies the length of our payload in the data packet. Weinrib says this is beneficial because it reduces the amount of data that needs to be processed based on rate indicators and gives us the benefit of lower power consumption.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine Young-Kaiping with Weinrib to include a rate indicator field that modifies the length of a payload in a data packet to gain the benefit of lower power consumption (Weinrib: [0014], [0015], [0032], and [0035]).
Claims 8 and 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 20210306103 A1) and Kaiping et al. (US 2020112863 A1) in view of Goyal et al. (WO 2023200615 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Young-Kaiping teaches
The electronic device of claim 5, but fails to explicitly teach
wherein the FT value comprises a value of a maximum number of the at least one subevent included in the CHS event.
However, Goyal teaches wherein the FT value comprises a value of a maximum number of the at least one subevent included in the CHS event. (Goyal: [0091] Each event, which may refer to either a CIS event or a BIG event, is associated with a number of parameters including (but not limited to) …a Flush Timeout (FT). [0092] The FT indicates the maximum number of CIS events that may be used to transmit (or retransmit) a given payload, see paragraphs [0091] and [0092]) [Examiner’s note: Goyal’s FT keeps track of the maximum number of events needed to transmit or retransmit a payload; he does this to reliably transmit data packets between connected devices asynchronously, see paragraph [0082]. This is an obvious variant that is more specific than what we have from Young and Kaiping who can be combined to identify events and keep track of additional information in the PDU of a data packet to determine the number of events based on an MD indicator.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to combine Young-Kaiping with Goyal to use the PDU of a data packet to store additional information such as a flush timeout value that keeps track of the maximum number of subevents in an event (Goyal: [007], [0048], [0092], and [0094]).
Regarding claim 18, Young-Kaiping teaches
The method of claim 15, but fails to explicitly teach
wherein the FT value comprises a value of a maximum number of the at least one subevent included in the CHS event.
However, Goyal teaches wherein the FT value comprises a value of a maximum number of the at least one subevent included in the CHS event. (Goyal: [0091] Each event, which may refer to either a CIS event or a BIG event, is associated with a number of parameters including (but not limited to) …a Flush Timeout (FT). [0092] The FT indicates the maximum number of CIS events that may be used to transmit (or retransmit) a given payload, see paragraphs [0091] and [0092]) [Examiner’s note: Goyal’s FT keeps track of the maximum number of events needed to transmit or retransmit a payload; he does this to reliably transmit data packets between connected devices asynchronously, see paragraph [0082]. This is an obvious variant that is more specific than what we have from Young and Kaiping who can be combined to identify events and keep track of additional information in the PDU of a data packet to determine the number of events based on an MD indicator.]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to combine Young-Kaiping with Goyal to use the PDU of a data packet to store additional information such as a flush timeout value that keeps track of the maximum number of subevents in an event (Goyal: [007], [0048], [0092], and [0094]).
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Young et al. (US 20210306103 A1) in view of Mysore et al. (US 20220408382 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Young teaches
The electronic device of claim 9, but does not explicitly teach
wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive first synchronization delay information corresponding to the first CHS event and second synchronization delay information corresponding to the second CHS event.
However, Mysore teaches wherein the at least one processor is further configured to receive first synchronization delay information corresponding to the first CHS event and second synchronization delay information corresponding to the second CHS event. (Mysore: [0032] In some implementations, synchronous actions by the devices of the wireless network are enabled by allowing various devices of the wireless network to determine the difference of their internal clocks with a clock of at least one other reference device in the network, e.g., parent device 210. The determined clock differences may be used to perform synchronous actions simultaneously on multiple devices, see paragraph [0032]) [Examiner’s note: Mysore also goes on to say “[0042] In some implementations, child device 220 may receive message 212, and may schedule … a time for a future action by adding some interval to the time of reception message….Child device 220 may compute a target time of action by adding the delay to the current (at the time of reception) clock value.” While Young does not explicitly address the issue of time synchronization in their invention, Mysore does. Mysore says that time synchronization of separate devices can be beneficial as it can provide one benefit of optimizing batteries, see paragraph [0016]. Time synchronization is a factor that is important for BLE since information is sent/received during events (which are time intervals). When multiple devices send information based on time intervals, they all have to have some way to take synchronization into account to properly send and receive messages between multiple devices]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to combine Young with Mysore to explicitly state the need to process synchronization delay information for each device to ensure that information between all devices is sent and received properly and gain an optimization of battery usage (Mysore: [0003], [0016], [0032], [0042]).
Regarding claim 20, Young teaches
The method of claim 19, but does not explicitly teach
further comprising receiving first synchronization delay information corresponding to the first CHS event and second synchronization delay information corresponding to the second CHS event.
However, Mysore teaches further comprising receiving first synchronization delay information corresponding to the first CHS event and second synchronization delay information corresponding to the second CHS event. (Mysore: [0032] In some implementations, synchronous actions by the devices of the wireless network are enabled by allowing various devices of the wireless network to determine the difference of their internal clocks with a clock of at least one other reference device in the network, e.g., parent device 210. The determined clock differences may be used to perform synchronous actions simultaneously on multiple devices, see paragraph [0032]) [Examiner’s note: Mysore also goes on to say “[0042] In some implementations, child device 220 may receive message 212, and may schedule … a time for a future action by adding some interval to the time of reception message….Child device 220 may compute a target time of action by adding the delay to the current (at the time of reception) clock value.” While Young does not explicitly address the issue of time synchronization in their invention, Mysore does. Mysore says that time synchronization of separate devices can be beneficial as it can provide one benefit of optimizing batteries, see paragraph [0016]. Time synchronization is a factor that is important for BLE since information is sent/received during events (which are time intervals). When multiple devices send information based on time intervals, they all have to have some way to take synchronization into account to properly send and receive messages between multiple devices]
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date, to combine Young with Mysore to explicitly state the need to process synchronization delay information for each device to ensure that information between all devices is sent and received properly and gain an optimization of battery usage (Mysore: [0003], [0016], [0032], [0042]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure:
(Huang Wenzong, CN 115022848 A)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUDY C FUENTES whose telephone number is (571)270-0912. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 8:00am - 5pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at (571) 270-5630. 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.
/R.C.F./
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights