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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 02/24/2025. Claims 1 – 18 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 8 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 8 in line 5 from the top of page 4 of the claim listing and claim 14 in line 11 from the top of page 6 of the claim listing state “N-the”. Perhaps it should be “N-th”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5 and 8 – 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 5 recites the limitations "the communication path", “the another portable wireless communication apparatus” and “the mesh network”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitations "the same access point”, “the access point” three times and “the same manner” three times. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitations “the first to N-the wireless communication systems”, "the same access point”, “the access point” three times and “the same manner” three times. There is insufficient antecedent basis for each of these limitations in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “the first to N-th wireless communication systems”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 9 – 13 and 15 – 18 are also rejected as being dependent from the rejected base claims.
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.
Claims 1 – 3 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140219194 (Varoglu) in view of US 20080232299 (Mosig).
Regarding claim 1, Varoglu teaches “A non-transitory recording medium readable by a computer, storing a program therein for causing a computer to carry out a method of making data-communication between portable wireless communication apparatuses (paragraph 0068: memory 1414 can provide a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium that can store computer program instructions that can be executed by processor 1412. Memory 1414 can be configured to store information, data, applications, instructions and/or the like for enabling apparatus 1400 to carry out various functions in accordance with one or more embodiments.),
the portable wireless communication apparatuses (FIG 1 and paragraph 0026: wireless communication device 102 and peer device 104 can establish a wireless P2P connection 118. Wireless communication device 102 can be a mobile communication device, such as a smart phone or a tablet computing device, which can be configured to wirelessly stream content over the wireless P2P connection 118. Peer device 104 can be a media receiver configured to receive content that is wirelessly streamed by wireless communication device 102. However, embodiments can be applied to any wireless communication devices that can be configured to establish wireless P2P links with each other, including cellular phones, tablet computing devices, laptop computing devices) each including:
a data transmitter/receiver for transmitting/receiving data to/from another party in accordance with a wireless communication system selected among a first to N-th wireless communication systems in dependence on a distance between the portable wireless communication apparatus and the another party, N being an integer equal to or greater than 2 (FIG 1 and paragraphs 0027 – 0028 and 0030: presence of wireless interfaces for communication using Wi-Fi in a 5 GHz band, using Wi-Fi in a 2.4 GHz band and cellular communication, thus, having three different types of wireless communication systems depending on the distance between devices 102 and 104. In this particular mapping, N=3)…”
“…wherein the non-transitory recording medium stores the computer program and first to N-th programs for operating the first to N-th wireless communication systems, respectively (implicit), the method including the steps of:
selecting a (M+1)-th wireless communication system when the distance…” “…is greater than a maximum communicable distance of a M-th wireless communication system, but is smaller than a maximum communicable distance of the (M+1)-th wireless communication system; and
causing the data transmitter/receiver to transmit/receive data to/from the another party in accordance with the (M+1)-th wireless communication system, M being an integer equal to or greater than 1 and equal to or smaller than (N-1) (FIG 5 and paragraph 0038: a wireless communication device 502 entering short range 508 from transition region 510 can suspend radio link 302 and resume use of radio link 304. When device 502 travels outside of short range region 508, such that received power becomes less than a first threshold for radio link 304, peer device 504 can suspend radio link 304 and resume radio link 302 through signaling. When a device exits the transition region 510, such that received power becomes less than a threshold for radio link 302, the P2P session can activate a cellular P2P fallback link 514. Thus, as wireless communication device 502 moves within various coverage ranges, signaling with peer device 504 can indicate that wireless communication device 502 is entering/exiting a coverage range (e.g., regions 508, 510, and 512) and that a connection should be suspended or resumed. In this case, N=3 and M=1, 2. ).”
Varoglu does not disclose presence of “a distance-detecting apparatus for judging the distance between the portable wireless communication apparatus and the another party” and that triggering condition is change in the distance “detected by the distance-detecting apparatus.” In Varoglu, the triggering condition is a metric for a signal received from the peer device, such as received power (PRx). Thus, if PRx is lower than a threshold, then a transition between use of different interfaces on the wireless communication device 502 that supports different radio frequency band connections can occur. See paragraph 0038.
In similar art, Mosig also teaches switching between wireless interfaces depending on the distance between the communicating devices (see FIG 2 and 6 and paragraphs 0128, 0129, 0131 – 0133). Similar to Varoglu, Mosig uses received signal strength as a trigger condition to switch between wireless interfaces (see paragraphs 0032 and 0073). However, Mosig also teaches usage of the distance between the devices as an alternative or in addition to using the received signal strength to switch between the wireless interfaces (see paragraphs 0048 and 0076). Particularly, as explained in paragraph 0076, the device includes “a distance-detecting apparatus for judging the distance between the portable wireless communication apparatus and the another party (paragraph 0076: the measurement unit 121 may be provided with positioning data GPS via external signal 104. The positioning data may indicate the position of the multimedia device and the position of another multimedia device that is connected to the multimedia device via the wireless connection. The measurement unit 121 may calculate the distance between the two devices from these positions and decide to switch to a different standard, in case the distance takes on a value greater than a predetermined threshold value.).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize the capability to determine the distance between the communicating devices and its usage as a triggering condition to switch wireless interface, as disclosed by Mosig, in the device of Varoglu. Doing so would have provided an additional criterion for switching wireless interface thus increasing reliability of determination of whether or not the wireless interface is to be switched.
Regarding claim 2, Varoglu alone or in combination with Mosig teaches “wherein the first to N-th wireless communication systems include at least one of BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy) (Mosig, paragraph 0060), Wi-Fi Direct (Varoglu, paragraphs 0026 and 0029), WDS (Wireless Distribution System) and UWB (Ultra-Wide Band) (Mosig, paragraph 0060).”
Regarding claim 3, “wherein the data transmitted/received by the data transmitter/receiver includes a current position of the portable wireless communication apparatus.”
The claim does not require actual determination of a current position, nor does the claim require its usage for any purpose. Therefore, this limitation merely recites content of the transmitted signals and thus comprises nonfunctional descriptive material which is not entitled to patentable weight.
“[T]he nature of the information being manipulated does not lend patentability to an otherwise unpatentable computer-implemented product or process.” Ex parte Nehls, 88 USPQ2d 1883, 1889 (BPAI 2008) (precedential)
The court stated that, although limitations reciting printed matter cannot be ignored, “[w]here the printed matter is not functionally related to the substrate, the printed matter will not distinguish the invention from the prior art in terms of patentability. Although the printed matter must be considered, in that situation it may not be entitled to patentable weight.” In re Gulack, 703 F.2d 1385 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
Material is printed matter if it is “claimed for what it communicates.” In re Distefano, 808 F.3d 845, 850 (Fed. Cir. 2015). The limitation of claim 3 merely characterizes the specific content of the transmitted information signals. Thus, the claimed limitation is directed to printed matter. See id. at 848 (A claim limitation is directed to printed matter “if it claims the content of information.”).
If a claim in a patent application claims printed matter, “one must then determine if the matter is functionally or structurally related to the associated physical substrate, and only if the answer is ‘no’ is the printed matter owed no patentable weight.” Distefano, 808 F.3d at 851. In claim 3, the claimed content of the transmitted information signals is not specifically related to the structure of the transmitted information signals, or explicitly used in the claim such as by the wireless telecommunication system to perform any function. Rather, the content of the information signals is not functionally distinct from any other information that is transmitted or received. Accordingly, the limitation of claim 3 constitute nonfunctional descriptive material and printed matter not functionally related to the associated substrate, which are not entitled to patentable weight. The content of the information signals in the present claims is analogous to the data in Curry, where the type of data was found to be nonfunctional descriptive material in that it “does not functionally change either the data storage system or communication system used in the method of [the] claim.” Ex parte Curry, 84 USPQ2d at 1274.
Because the content of the information signals specified by the limitation of claim 3 constitutes nonfunctional descriptive material, the particular type of transmitted information recited in claim 3 is not entitled to patentable weight.
Additionally or alternatively, this is disclosed by Mosig, paragraph 0076: the measurement unit 121 may be provided with positioning data GPS via external signal 104. The positioning data may indicate the position of the multimedia device and the position of another multimedia device that is connected to the multimedia device via the wireless connection.
Regarding claim 7, Varoglu alone or in combination with Mosig teaches “A cellular phone (Varoglu, paragraph 0026: In FIG. 1, wireless communication device 102 can be a mobile communication device, such as a smart phone) including: a data transmitter/receiver for transmitting/receiving data to/from another party in accordance with a wireless communication system selected among a first to N-th wireless communication systems in dependence on a distance between the cellular phone and the another party, N being an integer equal to or greater than 2; a distance-detecting unit for judging the distance between the cellular phone and the another party; and the non-transitory recording medium as set forth in claim 1, wherein the non-transitory recording medium further stores first to N-th programs for operating the first to N-th wireless communication systems, respectively (the rest of the claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above since the limitations of current claim merely repeat the limitations of claim 1).”
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140219194 (Varoglu) in view of US 20080232299 (Mosig) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20070127417 (Kalika).
Regarding claim 4, Varoglu teaches in FIG 11 with corresponding description in paragraph 0061 “…calculating an optimal communication path to the another portable wireless communication apparatus (Mobility of the wireless communication device during a P2P session can result in the mobile communication device 1104 transitioning outside of boundary 1106. Mobile communication device 1104 can establish a wireless P2P connection 1112 with a middle hop device 1108 to continue the P2P session with peer device 1102 (“the another portable wireless communication apparatus”) after it has moved outside of boundary 1106. In this regard, middle hop device 1108, which can be within boundary 1106, can relay P2P communications between static peer device 1102 and mobile communication device 1104. Although the step of “calculating an optimal communication path” is not explicitly disclosed, by the virtue of establishing connection through the middle hop device 1108, this step has implicitly been performed. Radio link configurations can be chosen based on a distance between hops, and thus can be adaptive based on received power thresholds. This is also an example of “an optimal communication path”);
establishing a communication path through which the portable wireless communication apparatus makes communication with the another portable wireless communication apparatus (Mobile communication device 1104 can establish a wireless P2P connection 1112 with a middle hop device 1108 to continue the P2P session with peer device 1102 (“the another portable wireless communication apparatus”) after it has moved outside of boundary 1106. In this regard, middle hop device 1108, which can be within boundary 1106, can relay P2P communications between static peer device 1102 and mobile communication device 1104. Thus, establishing the communication paths 1112 represent “establishing a communication path through which…”); and
serially carrying out the…” “…the calculating and the establishing to thereby construct a mesh network to the another portable wireless communication apparatus (multiple hops, e.g. through one or more devices, can be used. For example, if mobile communication device 1104 travels outside of a wireless P2P range of the middle hop device 1108, another hop can be added or replaced to continue the connection. This means that upon traveling farther away, the device 1104 is “serially carrying out the” process of searching for additional middle hop communication devices through which the path is to be established to the device 1102. More generally, a multi-hop operation may include a mesh-based configuration to help maintain a wireless P2P communication regardless of the path and the number of hops between static peer device 1102 and mobile communication device 1104.).”
While teaching the general concept of establishing mesh network, Varoglu does not explicitly disclose “scanning around the portable wireless communication apparatus to thereby detect another portable wireless communication apparatus existing in a scanned area” and that this scanning is conducted “serially”.
Kalika in paragraph 0038 also teaches creation of mesh networks (paragraph 0038: By means of the software described here a wireless mesh is automatically established and maintained even as nodes are added, removed or fail.). Particularly, Kalika teaches “scanning around the portable wireless communication apparatus to thereby detect another portable wireless communication apparatus existing in a scanned area (each node operates independently according to programmed rules to discover itself and other nodes);
calculating an optimal communication path to the another portable wireless communication apparatus (select connections that the nodes themselves determine consistently to have the best combination of round-trip delay (RTD) and signal strength, namely the combination that achieves the highest data communication rate. Thus routing is optimum in the sense that the system automatically seeks and uses the fewest, best routes.);
establishing a communication path through which the portable wireless communication apparatus makes communication with the another portable wireless communication apparatus (becoming integrated into an effective network means that the communication is established according to the optimal routing); and
serially carrying out the scanning, the calculating and the establishing to thereby construct a mesh network to the another portable wireless communication apparatus (the routing process operates continuously, the system quickly restores optimum routing in response to changes such as adding or removing nodes, or node failure.).”
Therefore, since Varoglu does not explicitly disclose every single step present in the claim, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize particular steps of mesh network creation disclosed by Kalika, in the system of Varoglu simply to fill in where Varoglu is silent and with predictable results, the results being creation of an optimal network, since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 5, Varoglu alone or in combination with Kalika teaches “wherein the computer program causes the portable wireless communication apparatus to further carry out updating the communication path to the another portable wireless communication apparatus for optimization after the mesh network was constructed (Varoglu, paragraph 0061: multiple hops, e.g. through one or more devices, can be used. For example, if mobile communication device 1104 travels outside of a wireless P2P range of the middle hop device 1108, another hop can be added or replaced to continue the connection. This means that upon traveling farther away, the device 1104 is “to further carry out updating the communication path”. More generally, a multi-hop operation may include a mesh-based configuration to help maintain a wireless P2P communication regardless of the path and the number of hops between static peer device 1102 and mobile communication device 1104. Additionally, Kalika, paragraph 0038: the routing process operates continuously and takes only a few seconds or less to execute, the system quickly restores optimum routing in response to changes such as adding or removing nodes, or node failure. This means that the mesh network is continuously updated “after the mesh network was constructed”).”
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140219194 (Varoglu) in view of US 20080232299 (Mosig) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20150181000 (Holtmanns).
Regarding claim 6, Varoglu does not teach “wherein the computer program causes the portable wireless communication apparatus to carry out judging whether data communication is urgent, and preferentially making the data communication if the data communication is judged to be urgent.”
Holtmanns teaches “judging whether data communication is urgent (FIG 3 with corresponding description. Particularly, paragraph 0051: in operation 302, receiving a connection request from an application. Paragraph 0053: in operation 314, determining that the connection request is an urgent connection request.), and preferentially making the data communication if the data communication is judged to be urgent (paragraph 0054: in operation 316, determining a connection time for the application. Paragraph 0019: The connection time window may be defined with a priority value, for example in an instance in which an urgent request is received. Paragraph 0035: In an instance in which an urgent connection request is received, the connection manager 112 may be configured to cause a connection to be established. For example, the connection manager 112 may not wait to bundle the urgent connection request with a connection request occurring in the future. An urgent connection request may be indicated by a value, such as zero, in the connection time indication field of a connection request. Paragraph 0054: in operation 318, causing the connection to be established at the connection time (i.e. “preferentially making the data communication”). Also claim 53).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Holtmanns capability of designating connection request is urgent and immediately establishing the connection based on the request, in the system of Varoglu. Doing so would have allowed to prioritize establishing connections designated as urgent.
Claims 8 – 10 and 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140219194 (Varoglu) in view of US 20080232299 (Mosig) and further in view of US 20120089834 (Li).
Regarding claims 8 and 14, Varoglu teaches “A data communication system for transmitting/receiving data between portable wireless communication apparatuses…” “…between a portable wireless communication apparatus and an access point (shown in FIG 1 with corresponding description: communication between wireless communication device 102 and peer device 104 as well as communication between them and access point 106),
the portable wireless communication apparatus (FIG 1 and paragraph 0026: wireless communication device 102 and peer device 104 can establish a wireless P2P connection 118. Wireless communication device 102 can be a mobile communication device, such as a smart phone or a tablet computing device, which can be configured to wirelessly stream content over the wireless P2P connection 118. Peer device 104 can be a media receiver configured to receive content that is wirelessly streamed by wireless communication device 102. However, embodiments can be applied to any wireless communication devices that can be configured to establish wireless P2P links with each other, including cellular phones, tablet computing devices, laptop computing devices) including:
a data transmitter/receiver for transmitting/receiving data to/from another party in accordance with a wireless communication system selected among a first to N-th wireless communication systems in dependence on a distance between the portable wireless communication apparatus and the another party, N being an integer equal to or greater than 2 (FIG 1 and paragraphs 0027 – 0028 and 0030: presence of wireless interfaces for communication using Wi-Fi in a 5 GHz band and using Wi-Fi in a 2.4 GHz band, thus, having at least two different types of wireless communication systems depending on the distance between devices 102 and 104. In this particular mapping, N=2)…”
“…a memory for storing first to N-th programs for operating the first to N-th wireless communication systems (implicit), respectively,
the data communication system selecting a (M+1)-th wireless communication system when the distance…” “…is greater than a maximum communicable distance of a M-th wireless communication system, but is smaller than a maximum communicable distance of the (M+1)-th wireless communication system, and causing the data transmitter/receiver to transmit/receive data to/from the another party in accordance with the (M+1)-th wireless communication system, M being an integer equal to or greater than 1 and equal to or smaller than (N- 1) (as explained above, in this particular mapping N=2, therefore, M=1. In view of this, FIG 1 and paragraph 0027: communication via a channel in a first frequency band, e.g. the 5.0 GHz band, for P2P connection 118 between wireless communication device 102 and peer device 104 can have a range 108 (corresponds to M=1). Communication via a second radio frequency band, e.g. the 2.4 GHz band, for P2P connection 118 between wireless communication device 102 and peer device 104 can have a range 110 (corresponds to (M+1)=2). the process of selection itself is described with respect to similar case of FIG 5 in paragraph 0038: a wireless communication device 502 entering short range 508 from transition region 510 can suspend radio link 302 and resume use of radio link 304. When device 502 travels outside of short range region 508, such that received power becomes less than a first threshold for radio link 304, peer device 504 can suspend radio link 304 and resume radio link 302 through signaling.),
the data communication system:
selecting the (M+1)-th wireless communication system when (a) the distance between the portable wireless communication apparatus and the another party is greater than the greatest distance among maximum communicable distances of the first to N-the wireless communication systems, (b) the portable wireless communication apparatus and the another party are both within the same access point, and (c) the distance between the portable wireless communication apparatus and the access point is greater than a maximum communicable distance of the M-th wireless communication system, but is smaller than a maximum communicable distance of the (M+1)-th wireless communication system; causing the data transmitter/receiver to make a first data-communication in accordance with the (M+1)-th wireless communication system between the portable wireless communication apparatus and the access point; and making a data-communication between the access point and the another party in the same manner as that of the first data-communication (although this particular case is not explicitly disclosed, the general concept applicable to this case is described in paragraph 0028: Indirect communication between wireless communication device 102 and peer device 104 via AP 106 can occur within a range 112 of the access point 106, such as when wireless communication device 102 has moved outside of range 110 relative to peer device 104. As illustrated in FIG. 1, range 108 may be shorter than range 110, and range 112 may be larger than range 108 and range 110. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that the particular case of these limitations simply follows from the general description of paragraph 0028. Indeed, as shown in Sketch 1 below, which is based on Varoglu’s FIG 1,
PNG
media_image1.png
949
1508
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sketch 1)…”
Varoglu does not disclose that the data communication system is also for transmitting/receiving data “between access points” and does not disclose “the data communication system: making a data-communication between the portable wireless communication apparatus and a first access point in the same manner as that of the first data- communication when the portable wireless communication apparatus is within the first access point, and the another party is within a second access point; making a data-communication between the first access point and the second access point; and making a data-communication between the another party and the second access point in the same manner as that of the first data-communication.”
Li in FIG 1 with corresponding description in paragraph 0003 teaches data communication system for transmitting/receiving data “between access points” and “the data communication system:
making a data-communication between the portable wireless communication apparatus and a first access point in the same manner as that of the first data- communication when the portable wireless communication apparatus is within the first access point, and the another party is within a second access point;
making a data-communication between the first access point and the second access point; and
making a data-communication between the another party and the second access point in the same manner as that of the first data-communication (a typical WDS system mainly comprises two parts, a Wireless Distribution System-Access Point (WDS-AP) (“a first access point”) and a Wireless Distribution System-Repeater (WDS-Repeater) (“a second access point”). The WDS-AP, as a wireless access point, is connected to the internet A, and wireless site can be directly wirelessly accessed to the WDS-AP (as the wireless site 1 shown in FIG. 1) (“making a data-communication between the portable wireless communication apparatus and a first access point in the same manner as that of the first data- communication when the portable wireless communication apparatus is within the first access point”). After a wireless link is established between the WDS-Repeater and the WDS-AP (“making a data-communication between the first access point and the second access point”), the wireless site can also be wirelessly accessed to the WDS-AP via the WDS-Repeater (as the wireless site 2 shown in FIG. 1) (“the another party is within a second access point”, “making a data-communication between the another party and the second access point in the same manner as that of the first data-communication”). Since the WDS-Repeater can forward wireless data between the WDS-AP and the wireless site, the extension of the wireless transmission distance can be realized.).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Li wireless distribution system comprising a plurality of access points, in the system of Varoglu. Doing so would have allowed to extend the range of the wireless transmission distance (see Li, paragraph 0003).
Varoglu does not disclose presence of “a distance-detecting apparatus for judging the distance between the portable wireless communication apparatus and the another party” and that triggering condition is change in the distance “detected by the distance-detecting apparatus.” However, these limitations are rejected in view of Mosig as explained in the rejection of similar limitations of claim 1 above, the explanation being incorporated herein by reference.
Regarding claims 9 and 15, Varoglu alone or in combination with Mosig teaches “wherein the first to N-th wireless communication systems include at least one of BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy) (Mosig, paragraph 0060), Wi-Fi Direct (Varoglu, paragraphs 0026 and 0029), WDS (Wireless Distribution System) (disclosed by Li as explained in the rejection of claim 8 above) and UWB (Ultra-Wide Band) (Mosig, paragraph 0060).”
Regarding claim 10, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 because they have similar limitations.
Regarding claim 13, Varoglu alone or in combination with Mosig teaches “wherein the portable wireless communication apparatus comprises a cellular phone. (Varoglu, paragraph 0026: In FIG. 1, wireless communication device 102 can be a mobile communication device, such as a smart phone).”
Claims 11, 12, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140219194 (Varoglu) in view of US 20080232299 (Mosig) and US 20120089834 (Li) as applied to claims 8 and 14 above, and further in view of US 20070127417 (Kalika).
Regarding claims 11 and 16, these claims are rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4 because they have similar limitations.
Regarding claims 12 and 17, these claims are rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 because they have similar limitations.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140219194 (Varoglu) in view of US 20080232299 (Mosig) and US 20120089834 (Li) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of US 20150181000 (Holtmanns).
Regarding claim 18, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 because they have similar limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights