DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 02/14/2025 and 10/31/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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, 8-9, 11, 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and / or (a)(2) as being unpatentable over Hansen (US 20080175213 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hansen teaches the limitations:
“An apparatus, wherein the apparatus comprises: a first communication module” ([FIG. 4] first multi-mode device 158. [FIG. 5] describes logics (equivalent to modules) 212-220 as being part of a multi-mode device).
“a second communication module” ([FIG. 5] first multi-mode device 204/208. There are logics (equivalent to modules) 212-220 that are part of the multi-mode device).
“and one or more memories storing programming instructions for execution by the first communication module and the second communication module, wherein: the first communication module is configured to encapsulate, according to a first wireless communication protocol, target data to generate a first data frame” ([0046], memory 65 can be used in radio 60 that can transmit and receive data, similar to the devices 158 and 162, thus the memory 65 can be implemented in devices 158/162. [FIG. 18] Steps 654-662 and [0087], first device generates packets and encapsulates them).
“And the second communication module is configured to: obtain the first data frame” ([FIG. 18] Step 670, second device receives the transmitted encapsulated data packet).
“And encapsulate, according to a second wireless communication protocol, the first data frame to generate a second data frame, wherein the second wireless communication protocol is different from the first wireless communication protocol” ([FIG. 17] and [0083], communications of a second communication protocol may also be carried out on a first communication protocol. A data packet from the second protocol link is broken into fragments. Afterwards, data packets on the first protocol link are generated. These first data protocol packets may contain a common second protocol packet ID, thus there is common data being sent on both the first communication protocol and second communication protocol).
“And send the second data frame by using a wireless communication technology corresponding to the second wireless communication protocol” ([FIG. 18] Step 666, second device sends packets on the second protocol link).
Regarding claim 4, Hansen teaches the limitation:
“wherein the first data frame is carried in a payload of the second data frame” ([0082] teaches that data packets may be included in a payload fragment).
Regarding claim 8, Hansen teaches the limitation:
“wherein the first wireless communication protocol and the second wireless communication protocol are any one of the following: a Bluetooth (BT) protocol, a wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) protocol, a ZigBee protocol, or a SparkLink protocol” ([0053-0056] disclose that the two devices 158/162 can communicate in a peer to peer setting, and that the first and second protocols (communications) may be Bluetooth).
Regarding claim 9, Hansen teaches the limitations:
“An apparatus, wherein the apparatus comprises: a first communication module” ([FIG. 4] first multi-mode device 158. ([FIG. 5] describes logics (equivalent to modules) 212-220 as being part of a multi-mode device).
“a second communication module” ([FIG. 5] first multi-mode device 204/208. [FIG. 5] describes logics (equivalent to modules) 212-220 as being part of a multi-mode device).
“and one or more memories storing programming instructions for execution by the first communication module and the second communication module, wherein the second communication module is configured to: receive a second data frame from a first device by using a wireless communication technology corresponding to a second wireless communication protocol” ([0046], memory 65 can be used in radio 60 that can transmit and receive data, similar to the devices 158 and 162, thus the memory 65 can be implemented in devices 158/162. [FIG. 18] Step 670 and [0087], device is able to receive encapsulated packet fragments from another device. [0061] discloses that that the first and second multi-mode devices can send beacons (data frames) on a periodic basis, resulting in multiple (first and second) data frames).
“And decapsulate the second data frame according to the second wireless communication protocol, to obtain a first data frame” ([FIG. 18] Step 670 and [0087-0088], second device receives a transmitted encapsulated data packet, the encapsulated packets are reconstructed into original form (decapsulated) [0061] discloses that that the first and second multi-mode devices can send beacons (data frames) on a periodic basis, resulting in multiple (first and second) data frames).
“And the first communication module is configured to: obtain the first data frame” ([FIG. 18] Step 670 and [0087], device receives frames / fragments from other device. [0061] discloses that that the first and second multi-mode devices can send beacons (data frames) on a periodic basis, resulting in multiple (first and second) data frames).
“And decapsulate, according to a first wireless communication protocol, the first data frame to obtain target data carried in the first data frame” ([FIG. 18] Step 670 and [0087], device receives the transmitted encapsulated data packet from another device, and the encapsulated packets are reconstructed into original form (aka decapsulated). [0061] discloses that that the first and second multi-mode devices can send beacons (data frames) on a periodic basis, resulting in multiple (first and second) data frames).
Regarding claim 11, Hansen teaches the limitation:
“wherein the first data frame is carried in a payload of the second data frame” ([0082] teaches that data packets may be included in a payload fragment).
Regarding claim 15, Hansen teaches the limitation:
“wherein the first wireless communication protocol and the second wireless communication protocol are any one of the following: a Bluetooth (BT) protocol, a wireless fidelity (Wi-Fi) protocol, a ZigBee protocol, or a SparkLink protocol” ([0053-0056] disclose that the two devices 158/162 can communicate in a peer to peer setting, and that the first and second protocols (communications) may be Bluetooth).
Regarding claim 16, Hansen teaches the limitations:
“A method, applied to a first device, wherein the method comprises: encapsulating, according to a first wireless communication protocol, target data to generate a first data frame” ([FIG. 4], devices 158 and 162, [FIG. 18] Steps 654-662 and [0087], first device generates packets and breaks them down into fragments),
“encapsulating, according to a second wireless communication protocol, the first data frame to generate a second data frame, wherein the second wireless communication protocol is different from the first wireless communication protocol” ([FIG. 17] and [0083], communications of a second communication protocol may also be carried out on a first communication protocol. A data packet from the second protocol link is broken into fragments. Afterwards, data packets on the first protocol link are generated. These first data protocol packets may contain a common second protocol packet ID, thus there is common data being sent on both the first communication protocol and second communication protocol),
“and sending the second data frame by using a wireless communication technology corresponding to the second wireless communication protocol” ([FIG. 18] Step 666, second device sends packets on the second protocol link).
Regarding claim 17, Hansen teaches the limitation:
“wherein the first data frame is carried in a payload of the second data frame” ([0082] teaches that data packets may be included in a payload fragment).
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.
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.
Claims 2-3, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (US 20080175213 A1), in view of Poulsen (US 20130322461 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Hansen differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach the limitations:
“wherein: the first communication module is further configured to: send the first data frame to the second communication module by using a share random access memory (RAM) technology or a universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter (UART) protocol”,
“and the second communication module is configured to: when obtaining the first data frame, obtain the first data frame from the first communication module by using the share RAM technology or the UART protocol”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Poulsen teaches:
“wherein: the first communication module is further configured to: send the first data frame to the second communication module by using a share random access memory (RAM) technology or a universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter (UART) protocol” ([0682] and [0899] discloses that UART may be used for transmitting and receiving data between two devices via UART controllers).
“and the second communication module is configured to: when obtaining the first data frame, obtain the first data frame from the first communication module by using the share RAM technology or the UART protocol” ([0682] discloses that UART may be used for transmitting and receiving data between two devices via UART controllers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of Hansen with those of Poulsen for the advantage of efficiently facilitating the communications between two devices through UART or share RAM technology.
Regarding claim 3, Hansen differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach the limitations:
“wherein at least one of the following operations is performed: the first communication module is further configured to: determine to transmit, according to the second wireless communication protocol, the target data carried in the first data frame based on at least one of the following: channel information corresponding to the first wireless communication protocol, load information of the first communication module, channel information corresponding to the second wireless communication protocol, load information of the second communication module, or a data amount of the target data”,
“or the second communication module is further configured to: determine to transmit, according to the second wireless communication protocol, the target data carried in the first data frame based on at least one of the following: channel information corresponding to the first wireless communication protocol, load information of the first communication module, channel information corresponding to the second wireless communication protocol, load information of the second communication module, or a data amount of the target data”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Poulsen teaches:
“wherein at least one of the following operations is performed: the first communication module is further configured to: determine to transmit, according to the second wireless communication protocol, the target data carried in the first data frame based on at least one of the following: channel information corresponding to the first wireless communication protocol, load information of the first communication module, channel information corresponding to the second wireless communication protocol, load information of the second communication module, or a data amount of the target data” ([0260] discloses that channel information may be used to determine the transmission of data (via time slots) between two devices (master device 52 and slave device 54),
“or the second communication module is further configured to: determine to transmit, according to the second wireless communication protocol, the target data carried in the first data frame based on at least one of the following: channel information corresponding to the first wireless communication protocol, load information of the first communication module, channel information corresponding to the second wireless communication protocol, load information of the second communication module, or a data amount of the target data” [0260] discloses that channel information may be used to determine the transmission of data (via time slots) between two devices (master device 52 and slave device 54).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of Hansen with those of Poulsen for the advantage of efficiently facilitating the communications between two devices through data frames that contain information about the devices and the data they send.
Regarding claim 10, Hansen differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach the limitations:
“wherein: the second communication module is further configured to: send the first data frame to the first communication module by using a share random access memory (RAM) technology or a universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter (UART) protocol”,
“and the first communication module is configured to: when obtaining the first data frame, obtain the first data frame from the second communication module by using the share RAM technology or the UART protocol”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Poulsen teaches:
“wherein: the second communication module is further configured to: send the first data frame to the first communication module by using a share random access memory (RAM) technology or a universal asynchronous receiver/transmitter (UART) protocol” ([0682] and [0899] discloses that UART may be used for transmitting and receiving data between two devices via UART controllers),
“and the first communication module is configured to: when obtaining the first data frame, obtain the first data frame from the second communication module by using the share RAM technology or the UART protocol” ([0682] discloses that UART may be used for transmitting and receiving data between two devices via UART controllers).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of Hansen with those of Poulsen for the advantage of efficiently facilitating the communications between two devices through UART or share RAM technology.
Claims 5-7, 12-13, 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (US 20080175213 A1), in view of Bar-Niv (US 11743366 B1).
Regarding claim 5, Hansen differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach the limitation:
“wherein the second data frame comprises a first frame header, the first frame header carries first information indicating a transmission channel of the first data frame, and the transmission channel is a transmission channel supporting the first wireless communication protocol”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Bar-Niv teaches:
“wherein the second data frame comprises a first frame header, the first frame header carries first information indicating a transmission channel of the first data frame, and the transmission channel is a transmission channel supporting the first wireless communication protocol” ([Col. 3, Lines 14-21] an intermediate frame header may include routing information (which is generally known to include the transmission channel used for sending data. [Col. 21, Lines 58-66], virtual channel field is included in flow identification information, which itself is part of an intermediate frame header).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of Hansen with those Bar-Niv, for the advantage of efficiently facilitating device to device communications by defining a data frame and transmission channels that the devices support.
Regarding claim 6, Hansen further teaches: “The apparatus according to claim 5, wherein the first information comprises at least one of the following: indication information of the first wireless communication protocol, an identifier of a source device, or an identifier of a destination device” ([0082], a MDSU (information) may include an address of either the source or destination devices (acting as an identifier).
Regarding claim 7, Hansen differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach:
“wherein the first frame header further comprises second information indicating a data type of the target data carried in the first data frame”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Bar-Niv teaches:
“wherein the first frame header further comprises second information indicating a data type of the target data carried in the first data frame” ([Col. 3, Lines 14-21] an intermediate frame header may include data type information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of Hansen with those of Bar-Niv for the advantage of facilitating efficient device-to-device transmissions by defining a data header used by the devices to indicate the types of data that they will send to each other.
Regarding claim 12, Hansen differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach the limitations:
“wherein the second data frame comprises a first frame header, the first frame header carries first information indicating a transmission channel of the first data frame, and the transmission channel is a transmission channel supporting the first wireless communication protocol”,
“and the second communication module is further configured to: after obtaining the first data frame, send the first data frame to the first communication module based on the first information, wherein the first communication module is configured to decapsulate the first data frame according to the first wireless communication protocol”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Bar-Niv teaches:
“wherein the second data frame comprises a first frame header, the first frame header carries first information indicating a transmission channel of the first data frame, and the transmission channel is a transmission channel supporting the first wireless communication protocol” ([Col. 3, Lines 14-21] an intermediate frame header may include routing information (which is generally known to include the transmission channel used for sending data. [Col. 21, Lines 58-66], virtual channel field is included in flow identification information, which itself is part of an intermediate frame header),
“and the second communication module is further configured to: after obtaining the first data frame, send the first data frame to the first communication module based on the first information, wherein the first communication module is configured to decapsulate the first data frame according to the first wireless communication protocol” ([Col. 6, Lines 21-29, 47-60], processor (second module) 156 receives frames from a processor 152, and can transmit signals (converted from frames) via link 112 (Ethernet protocol). Processors 168 and 172 (part of other device 160, either can be considered a first module) receive the signals on the link 112, and decapsulate said signals).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of Hansen with those Bar-Niv, for the advantage of efficiently facilitating device to device communications by defining a data frame and transmission channels that the devices support.
Regarding claim 13, Hansen further teaches: “wherein the first information comprises at least one of the following: indication information of the first wireless communication protocol; an identifier of a source device; or an identifier of a destination device.” ([0082], a MDSU (information) may include an address of either the source or destination devices (acting as an identifier).
Regarding claim 18, Hansen differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach the limitation:
“wherein the second data frame comprises a first frame header, the first frame header carries first information indicating a transmission channel of the first data frame, and the transmission channel is a transmission channel supporting the first wireless communication protocol”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Bar-Niv teaches:
“wherein the second data frame comprises a first frame header, the first frame header carries first information indicating a transmission channel of the first data frame, and the transmission channel is a transmission channel supporting the first wireless communication protocol” ([Col. 3, Lines 14-21] an intermediate frame header may include routing information (which is generally known to include the transmission channel used for sending data. [Col. 21, Lines 58-66], virtual channel field is included in flow identification information, which itself is part of an intermediate frame header).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of Hansen with those Bar-Niv, for the advantage of efficiently facilitating device to device communications by defining a data frame and transmission channels that the devices support.
Regarding claim 19, Hansen further teaches: “wherein the first information comprises at least one of the following: indication information of the first wireless communication protocol, an identifier of a source device, or an identifier of a destination device” ([0082], a MDSU (information) may include an address of either the source or destination devices (acting as an identifier).
Regarding claim 20, Hansen differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach:
“wherein the first frame header further comprises second information indicating a data type of the target data carried in the first data frame”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Bar-Niv teaches:
“wherein the first frame header further comprises second information indicating a data type of the target data carried in the first data frame” ([Col. 3, Lines 14-21] an intermediate frame header may include data type information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of Hansen with those of Bar-Niv for the advantage of facilitating efficient device-to-device transmissions by defining a data header used by the devices to indicate the types of data that they will send to each other.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hansen (US 20080175213 A1), in view of Bar-Niv (US 11743366 B1), and further in view of Poulsen (US 20130322461 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Hansen differs from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach:
“wherein the first frame header further comprises second information indicating a data type of the target data carried in the first data frame”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Bar-Niv teaches:
“wherein the first frame header further comprises second information indicating a data type of the target data carried in the first data frame” ([Col. 3, Lines 14-21] an intermediate frame header may include data type information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention to combine the limitations of Hansen with those of Bar-Niv, for the advantage of more efficiently transmitting data by defining frame headers for data, and being able to indicate the data type in said headers in peer to peer communications.
The combination of Hansen and Bar-Niv differ from the claimed invention in that it does not specifically teach:
“the second communication module is further configured to: send the second information to the first communication module”,
“and the first communication module is further configured to: after obtaining the target data carried in the first data frame, send service data to an application layer of a second device when the second information indicates that the data type of the target data is the service data”,
“or perform a control operation corresponding to a signaling when the second information indicates that the data type of the target data is the signaling”.
However, pertaining to the same field of invention, Poulsen teaches:
“the second communication module is further configured to: send the second information to the first communication module” ([0467], two devices connected to each other via a bus 64 can transmit and receive data between each other),
“and the first communication module is further configured to: after obtaining the target data carried in the first data frame, send service data to an application layer of a second device when the second information indicates that the data type of the target data is the service data”,
“or perform a control operation corresponding to a signaling when the second information indicates that the data type of the target data is the signaling” ([0153], [0197], [0467], synchronization data is one possible type of data that can be transmitted between devices (equivalent to modules) on the bus. [0197] describes synchronization data as being used by the devices to signal (essentially a control operation) to other devices on the bus when they can transmit data.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the field of the claimed invention before the effective filing date to combine the limitations of the combination of Hansen and Bar-Niv with those of Poulsen, for the advantage of facilitating efficient device-to-device transmissions by defining a data header used by the devices to indicate the types of data that they will send to each other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)482-9975. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-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, Yuwen Pan can be reached at 571-272-7855. 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.
/BENJAMIN H. NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 2649 /YUWEN PAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights