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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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 factual inquiries 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.
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.
Claim 1, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David A. Hulse et al. (US 2023/0319917 A1), in view of Nikhil Jain et al. (US 2022/0394436 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hulse teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a first device (para. [0018] line 3-5, para. [0021] line 5-7, fig. 3 @310), comprising: one or more memories (para. [0147] line 9-10); and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories (para. [0147] line 7-9, para. [0151] line 8-10), the one or more processors individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to:
transmit a medium access control (MAC) address of the first device (fig. 10 @1002) and an internet protocol (IP) address of the first device (fig. 10 @1002) to a second device (fig. 10 @1001) paired with the first device (fig. 10 @1003, para. [0041] line 6-10, para. [0046] last 4 lines, the casting device and the guest device exchange each other’s MAC and IP addresses and communicate directly);
transmit a connection request to an application server (fig. 3 @318, para. [0036], casting device has receiver applications for downloading content from the internet, when requested, the receiver application connects to the Internet and fetch the requested content) on a non-cellular link (para. [0016], user devices connect to the same Wi-Fi network) via an access point (fig. 1 @121, para. [0021] line 8-11, user devices communicate via access points), using the MAC address and the IP address (fig. 4 @310, using the casting device’s MAC and IP address);
receive a set of media packets from the application server (fig. 3 @318, para. [0036], the casting devices’ receiver applications receive the downloaded content from the internet), via the access point (fig. 1 @121, para. [0021] line 8-11, user devices communicate via access points), that are destined for the MAC address and the IP address (fig. 4 @310, received at the same casting device’s MAC and IP address);
However, Hulse fails to explicitly teach “receive, from the second device, a request for one or more media packets of the set of media packets; and transmit, to the second device, one or more buffered media packets of the one or more media packets.”
In the same field of wireless communication, Jain teaches receive, from the second device (fig. 1 @116), a request for one or more media packets of the set of media packets (para. [0092] last 5 lines, the second device sends a request for media content to the first device);
transmit, to the second device (fig. 1 @116), one or more buffered media packets of the one or more media packets (para. [0092] line 6-8, the first device sends media content to the second device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hulse’s wireless communication setup for use with casting devices to include the relay function among devices for media packets as taught by Jain for the purpose of reducing connection setup overhead and interference in wireless network, and improving data capacity throughput.
Regarding claim 15, Hulse teaches an apparatus for wireless communication at a first device (para. [0018] line 3-5, para. [0021] line 5-7, fig. 3 @310), comprising: one or more memories (para. [0147] line 9-10); and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories (para. [0147] line 7-9, para. [0151] line 8-10), the one or more processors individually or collectively configured to cause the second device to:
receive, from a first device (fig. 10 @1002) paired with the second device (fig. 10 @1001), a medium access control (MAC) address of the first device and an internet protocol (IP) address of the first device (fig. 10 @1003, para. [0041] line 6-10, para. [0046] last 4 lines, the casting device and the guest device exchange each other’s MAC and IP addresses and communicate directly);
receive, via an access point (fig. 1 @121, para. [0021] line 8-11, user devices communicate via access points), a set of media packets (fig. 3 @318, para. [0036], the casting devices’ receiver applications receive the downloaded content from the internet) with a destination of the MAC address and the IP address of the first device (fig. 4 @310, received at the same casting device’s MAC and IP address);
receive, from the first device (fig. 10 @1002), one or more buffered media packets of the one or more media packets (para. [0104] line 1-5, the casting device receives network packets from the guest device).
However, Hulse fails to explicitly teach “transmit, to the first device, a request for one or more media packets of the set of media packets that are not received by the second device”.
In the same field of wireless communication, Jain teaches transmit, to the first device (fig. 1 @110), a request for one or more media packets of the set of media packets that are not received by the second device (para. [0092] last 5 lines, the second device sends a request for media content to the first device);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hulse’s wireless communication setup for use with casting devices to include the relay function among devices for media packets as taught by Jain for the purpose of reducing connection setup overhead and interference in wireless network, and improving data capacity throughput.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 2, 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David A. Hulse et al. (US 2023/0319917 A1), in view of Nikhil Jain et al. (US 2022/0394436 A1), and further in view of Paik et al. (US 2026/0163682 A1).
Regarding claim 2, and as applied to claim 1 above, Hulse teaches the casting device to download and cast content (fig. 7 last step).
However, Hulse fails to explicitly teach “wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to transmit acknowledgements for the one or more media packets that are received by the first device”.
In the same field of wireless system, Paik teaches “wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to transmit acknowledgements for the one or more media packets that are received by the first device” (para. [0050], the first sink device transmits an ACK message to the source device for the reception status of audio data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Hulse’s device casting method with the acknowledgement upon receipt of media packets as taught by Paik for the purpose of improving the accuracy and efficiency of the network system.
Regarding claim 16, and as applied to claim 15 above, Hulse teaches the casting device to download and cast content (fig. 7 last step).
However, Hulse fails to explicitly teach “wherein the request is based at least in part on media packet reception statistics for the second device”.
Paik teaches wherein the request is based at least in part on media packet reception statistics for the second device (para. [0053] & [0054], the first and second sink devices share data reception status information, the first device receives the information from the second device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Hulse’s device casting method with the acknowledgement upon receipt of media packets as taught by Paik for the purpose of improving the accuracy and efficiency of the network system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 3-4, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David A. Hulse et al. (US 2023/0319917 A1), in view of Nikhil Jain et al. (US 2022/0394436 A1), and further in view of Uppala et al. (US 2023/0319711 A1).
Regarding claim 3, and as applied to claim 1 above, Hulse teaches the casting device to download and cast content (fig. 7 last step).
However, Hulse fails to explicitly teach “wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to buffer the one or more media packets that are received by the first device, to obtain the one or more buffered media packets, during a target wake time (TWT) service period (SP) or a traffic period of the first device that includes multiple physical layer convergence protocol data units (PPDUs)”.
In the same field of wireless communication, Uppala teaches wherein the one or more processors (para. [0070] line 14) are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to buffer the one or more media packets that are received by the first device (para. [0082] line 4-7, the transmit buffer queues data packets and sends to the peripheral device (first device)), to obtain the one or more buffered media packets (para. [0083] line 2-4, data packets are queued and stored in the received buffer), during a target wake time (TWT) service period (SP) (fig. 8A @ t1, peripheral device receives BT-encoded audio packets during TWT session) or a traffic period of the first device that includes multiple physical layer convergence protocol data units (PPDUs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine Hulse’s network packet relay method with the buffering of received media packets during target wake time (TWT) as taught by Uppala for the purpose of enhancing the efficiency of the network system.
Regarding claim 4, and as applied to claim 3 above, Hulse teaches “the casting server receives a casting request from the guest device” and “cast the requested content onto the display device” (para. [0105]).
However, Hulse fails to explicitly teach “wherein to receive the request for the one or more media packets of the set of media packets, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to receive the request at an end of the TWT SP or the traffic period on a relay link between the first device and the second device”.
Uppala teaches wherein to receive the request for the one or more media packets of the set of media packets, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to receive the request at an end of the TWT SP (para. [0110] line 5-12, fig. 8A @t5, t6, the wireless device send instruction for the peripheral device to request the new TWT session during TWT teardown) or the traffic period on a relay link (para. [0110] last 4 lines, transmit the instruction over the Bluetooth connection) between the first device and the second device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hulse’s request sending between pairing devices to include transmitting the request at the end of the TWT SP as taught by Uppala for the purpose of aligning with traffic needs and reducing network interference.
Regarding claim 17, and as applied to claim 15 above, Hulse teaches “the casting server receives a casting request from the guest device” and “cast the requested content onto the display device” (para. [0105]).
However, Hulse fails to explicitly teach “wherein to transmit the request, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the second device to transmit the request at an end of a target wake time service period or a traffic period on a relay link between the first device and the second device”.
Uppala teaches wherein to transmit the request, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the second device to transmit the request at an end of a target wake time service period (para. [0110] line 5-12, fig. 8A @t5, t6, the wireless device send instruction for the peripheral device to request the new TWT session during TWT teardown) or a traffic period on a relay link (para. [0110] last 4 lines, transmit the instruction over the Bluetooth connection) between the first device and the second device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hulse’s request sending between pairing devices to include transmitting the request at the end of the TWT SP as taught by Uppala for the purpose of aligning with traffic needs and reducing network interference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David A. Hulse et al. (US 2023/0319917 A1), in view of Nikhil Jain et al. (US 2022/0394436 A1) and Uppala et al. (US 2023/0319711 A1), and further in view of Ajami et al. (US 2023/0087887 A1).
Regarding claim 5, and as applied to claim 4 above, Hulse teaches “the casting device may have special receiver applications for downloading the content to be cast onto the display devices” (para. [0036]).
However, Hulse fails to explicitly teach “wherein to transmit the one or more buffered media packets, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to transmit the one or more buffered media packets at an end of the TWT SP or the traffic period”.
In the same field of wireless communication, Ajami teaches wherein to transmit the one or more buffered media packets, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to transmit the one or more buffered media packets at an end of the TWT SP or the traffic period (para. [0007] last 7 lines, transmitting the buffered DL packets after the end of the first r-TWT SP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hulse’s content casting between paired devices to include the schedule of transmitting media packets as taught by Ajami for the purpose of optimizing power use, aligning with traffic needs and reducing network interference.
Regarding claim 6, and as applied to claim 5 above, in combination of Hulse, Jain, Uppala and Ajami, Hulse teaches “wherein to transmit the one or more buffered media packets, the one or more processors are individually or collectively are configured to cause the first device to transmit the one or more buffered media packets on the relay link” (para. [0036] & [0016], the casting device downloads the content from the internet and cast onto the display devices over the same WIFI network).
Regarding claim 7, and as applied to claim 5 above, Hulse teaches “the casting device, for example, using the information transmitted to the casting device by the casting server. Such information can include the location of the content” (para. [0105]).
However, Hulse fails to explicitly teach “wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to transmit information about the one or more buffered media packets on the relay link”.
Uppala teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to transmit information about the one or more buffered media packets on the relay link (para. [0042] last 11 lines & para. [0043] line 4-7 & last 3 lines, the wireless device transmits TWT parameters and TTP value which contains the information about the data buffer).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission of content location information as taught by Hulse to include the transmission of buffered data information as taught by Uppala for the purpose of reducing network interference and improving the efficiency of the network system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 8-10, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David A. Hulse et al. (US 2023/0319917 A1), in view of Nikhil Jain et al. (US 2022/0394436 A1), and further in view of Viger et al. (US 2023/0262803 A1).
Regarding claim 8, and as applied to claim 1 above, Hulse teaches “the casting device may have special receiver applications for downloading the content to be cast onto the display devices” (para. [0036]).
However, Hulse fails to explicitly teach “wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to buffer the one or more media packets that are received by the first device, to obtain the one or more buffered media packets, during each physical layer convergence protocol data unit (PPDU) of multiple PPDUs during a target wake time (TWT) service period (SP) or a traffic period of the first device”.
In the same field of wireless communication, Viger teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to buffer the one or more media packets that are received by the first device (fig. 4, fig. 7 @720, para. [0006] & para. [0022], the original multilink (ML) device buffered received exchanged data), to obtain the one or more buffered media packets (para. [0090]), during each physical layer convergence protocol data unit (PPDU) of multiple PPDUs during a target wake time (TWT) service period (SP) or a traffic period of the first device (para. [0065] line 1-3, para. [0166]-[0167], fig. 7 @710 @720, two ML devices have a communication session, timeslot for communication is created then the buffering happens).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hulse’s content casting between paired devices to include the media packet buffering during a traffic period as taught by Viger for the purpose of reducing network interference and improving the efficiency of the network system.
Regarding claim 9, and as applied to claim 8 above, Hulse teaches “the casting server receives a casting request from the guest device” and “cast the requested content onto the display device” (para. [0105]).
However, Hulse fails to explicitly teach “wherein to receive the request, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to receive the request at an end of each PPDU of the multiple PPDUs”.
Viger teaches wherein to receive the request, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to receive the request at an end of each PPDU of the multiple PPDUs (para. [0190] line 1-3, para. [0110], block Ack request is sent to original ML device after PPDU).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hulse’s request sending between pairing devices to include transmitting the request at the end of each PPDU as taught by Viger for the purpose of aligning with traffic needs and reducing network interference.
Regarding claim 10, and as applied to claim 9 above, Hulse teaches “the casting server may tear down the rules when they are no longer needed (e.g., when the given pairing is removed)) (para. [0035]).
However, Hulse fails to explicitly teach “wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to, at the end of each PPDU, remove buffered media packets that are not indicated by the request as being missed by the second device”.
Viger teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to, at the end of each PPDU, remove buffered media packets that are not indicated by the request as being missed by the second device (para. [0019], para. [0037] last 4 lines, data is removed from buffer regardless of any respective data unit acknowledgement; para. [0190] line 3, fig. 9 @910 @930, BA frame received after PPDU, then XORed to remove buffered data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the removal of pairing data as taught by Hulse to include the removal of buffered data method as taught by Viger for the purpose of optimizing power use, aligning with traffic needs and reducing network interference.
Regarding claim 18, and as applied to claim 15 above, Hulse teaches “the casting server receives a casting request from the guest device” and “cast the requested content onto the display device” (para. [0105]).
However, Hulse fails to explicitly teach “wherein to transmit the request, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the second device to transmit the request at an end of each physical layer convergence protocol data unit (PPDU) of multiple PPDUs of a target wake time service period or a traffic period of the first device”.
Viger teaches wherein to transmit the request, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the second device to transmit the request at an end of each physical layer convergence protocol data unit (PPDU) of multiple PPDUs of a target wake time service period or a traffic period of the first device (para. [0190] line 1-3, para. [0110] & para. [0022], block Ack request is sent to original ML device after PPDU by the recipient ML device).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hulse’s request sending between pairing devices to include transmitting the request at the end of each PPDU as taught by Viger for the purpose of aligning with traffic needs and reducing network interference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David A. Hulse et al. (US 2023/0319917 A1), in view of Nikhil Jain et al. (US 2022/0394436 A1) and Viger et al. (US 2023/0262803 A1), and further in view of Fang et al. (US 2023/0300883 A1).
Regarding claim 11, and as applied to claim 10 above, Hulse teaches “the casting device may have special receiver applications for downloading the content to be cast onto the display devices” (para. [0036]).
However, Hulse fails to explicitly teach “wherein to transmit the one or more buffered media packets, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to transmit the one or more buffered media packets at the end of each PPDU, and wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to receive acknowledgements for the one or more buffered media packets that are transmitted”.
Viger teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to receive acknowledgements for the one or more buffered media packets that are transmitted (para. [0156], fig. 6, original ML device builds an acknowledgement scoreboard upon transmitting stored data units, the acknowledgement scoreboard acknowledges the transmitted data units).
However, Viger fails to explicitly teach “wherein to transmit the one or more buffered media packets, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to transmit the one or more buffered media packets at the end of each PPDU”.
In the same field of wireless communication, Fang teaches wherein to transmit the one or more buffered media packets, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to transmit the one or more buffered media packets at the end of each PPDU (para. [0069], after the first device receives the current PPDU and senses that the channel is idle, the first device AP transmits the time-critical (TC) frame).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hulse’s content casting between paired devices to include the method of transmitting buffered data at the end of PPDU and keeping track of the buffered data being sent for the purpose of aligning with traffic needs and reducing network interference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David A. Hulse et al. (US 2023/0319917 A1), in view of Nikhil Jain et al. (US 2022/0394436 A1) and Viger et al. (US 2023/0262803 A1), and further in view of Ajami (US 2023/0087887 A1).
Regarding claim 12, and as applied to claim 10 above, Hulse teaches “the casting device may have special receiver applications for downloading the content to be cast onto the display devices” (para. [0036]).
However, Hulse fails to explicitly teach “wherein to transmit the one or more buffered media packets, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to transmit the one or more buffered media packets at the end of the TWT SP or the traffic period”.
In the same field of wireless communication, Ajami teaches wherein to transmit the one or more buffered media packets, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to transmit the one or more buffered media packets at an end of the TWT SP or the traffic period (para. [0007] last 7 lines, transmitting the buffered DL packets after the end of the first r-TWT SP).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hulse’s content casting between paired devices to include the schedule of transmitting media packets as taught by Ajami for the purpose of optimizing power use, aligning with traffic needs and reducing network interference.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 13, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David A. Hulse et al. (US 2023/0319917 A1), in view of Nikhil Jain et al. (US 2022/0394436 A1) and Viger et al. (US 2023/0262803 A1), and further in view of Paik et al. (US 2026/0163682 A1).
Regarding claim 13, and as applied to claim 9 above, Hulse teaches the casting device to download and cast content (fig. 7 last step).
However, Hulse fails to explicitly teach “wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to transmit an acknowledgement for each media packet that is successfully received by both the first device and the second device, and wherein the acknowledgement is based at least in part on one or more of the request, receive statistics from the second device, or an acknowledgement of the second device”.
Paik teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to transmit an acknowledgement for each media packet that is successfully received by both the first device and the second device (para. [0050] & para. [0052], the first sink device transmits an ACK message to the source device for the reception status of audio data, both the first device and the second device receive the data from the source device), and wherein the acknowledgement is based at least in part on one or more of the request, receive statistics from the second device, or an acknowledgement of the second device (para. [0057] & fig. 15, second device sends ACK message to the first device upon receiving the relay packet).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hulse’s device casting method to include the acknowledgement upon receipt of media packets as taught by Paik for the purpose of improving the accuracy and efficiency of the network system.
Regarding claim 19, and as applied to claim 15 above, Hulse teaches the casting device to download and cast content (fig. 7 last step).
However, Hulse fails to explicitly teach “wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the second device to transmit, to the first device, acknowledgements for the one or more buffered media packets that are received by the second device”.
Paik teaches wherein the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the second device to transmit, to the first device, acknowledgements for the one or more buffered media packets that are received by the second device (para. [0050], the sink device transmits an ACK message to the source device for the reception status of audio data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hulse’s device casting method to include the acknowledgement upon receipt of media packets as taught by Paik for the purpose of improving the accuracy and efficiency of the network system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claim 14, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over David A. Hulse et al. (US 2023/0319917 A1), in view of Nikhil Jain et al. (US 2022/0394436 A1) and Viger et al. (US 2023/0262803 A1), and further in view of Newham et al. (US 9088406 B2).
Regarding claim 14, and as applied to claim 10 above, Hulse teaches “the one or more media packets that are being received via the access point” (para. [0021] line 8-11, fig. 1, user devices communicate with network devices through access points).
However, Hulse fails to explicitly teaches “wherein to transmit the one or more buffered media packets, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to transmit the one or more buffered media packets over a relay piconet that is out-of-band”.
In the same field of wireless communication, Newham teaches wherein to transmit the one or more buffered media packets, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the first device to transmit the one or more buffered media packets over a relay piconet that is out-of-band (col. 7 line 57-64, col. 8 line 41-53, using the piconet network, the wrist display transmit audio stream via a separate out-of-band channel to a first earpiece, which relay them to a second earpiece).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the method of communicating via the access point as taught by Hulse with the out-of-bound data transmission over relay piconet as taught by Newham for the purpose of reducing network interference and improving efficiency of the network system.
Regarding claim 20, and as applied to claim 15 above, Hulse teaches “the one or more media packets that are being received via the access point” (para. [0021] line 8-11, fig. 1, user devices communicate with network devices through access points).
However, Hulse fails to explicitly teaches “wherein to transmit the request, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the second device to transmit the request over a relay piconet that is out-of-band”.
Jain teaches wherein to transmit the request, the one or more processors are individually or collectively configured to cause the second device to transmit the request (para. [0075] & fig. 8, the second device B requests the RoT device for sending the sensor data).
However, Jain fails to explicitly teach “transmit the request over a relay piconet that is out-of-band of the one or more media packets that are being received via the access point”.
Newham teaches transmit the request over a relay piconet that is out-of-band of the one or more media packets that are being received via the access point (col. 7 line 57-64, col. 8 line 41-53, using the piconet network, the wrist display transmit audio stream via a separate out-of-band channel to a first earpiece, which relay them to a second earpiece).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the
effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine the method of communicating via the access point as taught by Hulse, with the transmission of request from second device as taught by Jain, and with the out-of-bound data transmission over relay piconet as taught by Newham for the purpose of reducing network interference and improving efficiency of the network system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOAN VO whose telephone number is (571)270-1584. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8:30am-6:00pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/T.V./
Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/GARY MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights