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). The certified copy has been filed in this application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/26/2025. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claim 7 states ““identify whether reception indication information related to the audio service is received from the external electronic device through the communication link based on the audio relay negotiation” and “control to transmit, to the external electronic device, relay data including the at least one first data packet received from the source electronic device based on the audio relay negotiation, based on the reception indication information”. Dependent claims 8-10 depend upon claim 7. The method of independent claim 20, and its dependent claims 18-20, contain similar subject matter as the apparatus of claim 7.
The instant specification discloses the external electronic device transmits relay data, from the source device, to the electronic device but does not describe the electronic device transmits relay data, from the source device, to the external electronic device. The former is shown in figures 11A, 11B, 12, and 13. Independent claims 1 and 11 are similar in subject matter to figure 12. Figure 13, which appears to be similar in text as independent claims 7 and 17, is “a flowchart illustrating an operation of an external electronic device 910 receiving reception indication identification information according to an example embodiment” [Instant Specification; paragraph 0028]. The instant disclosure discloses neither the electronic device “identify whether reception indication information related to the audio service is received from the external electronic device” nor “control to transmit, to the external electronic device, relay data”. Therefore, the claims 7-10 and 17-20 are not described in the instant disclosure in such a way as to reasonably convey, to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Therefore, claims 7-10 and 17-20 are rejected under 112(a).
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bonde et al. (“Bonde”) [PGPUB 2022/0200716] in view of Linsky et al. (“Linsky”) [PGPUB 2021/0288764].
Regarding claim 1, the Bonde reference discloses an electronic device, comprising: memory storing instructions; communication circuitry; and at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, operatively connected to the communication circuitry, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively [ie. speaker (“electronic device”); Bonde; figures 1 and 2], cause the electronic device to:
establish a communication link with an external electronic device through at least the communication circuitry [ie. soundbar (“external electronic device”); Bonde; para 0056-0057 and 0075];
perform at least part of an audio relay for an audio service with the external electronic device through the communication link [ie shares the acknowledgement and retransmission plans (“audio relay”); Bonde; fig 13; para 0075];
receive at least one first data packet broadcast from a source electronic device [ie. source device (“source electronic device”); Bonde; fig 1; para 0052 and 0054];
control to transmit reception indication information related to the audio service to the external electronic device through at least the communication link based on the audio relay [ie. help request “reception indication information”; Bonde; para 0072-0073 and 0075];
receive, from the external electronic device, relay data including at least one second data packet received from the source electronic device by the external electronic device based on the audio relay negotiation [ie. retransmit payload from missing packet; Bonde; para 0072-0073 and 0078-0079]; and
output an audio based on the at least one first data packet and the at least one second data packet [ie. first packet and retransmitted second packet; Bonde; para 0059, 0072, and 0080].
The Bonde reference discloses devices can share retransmission plans but does not specifically disclose “audio relay negotiation”.
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Linsky reference discloses audio relay negotiation [Linsky; fig 6; para 0099-0100]. The Bonde and Linsky references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area of audio transmission within Bluetooth protocol. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of negotiation, taught by Linsky, into the system, taught by Blonde. The motivation for doing so would have been to have communication between slave devices.
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Bonde-Linsky further discloses the electronic device to, through the audio relay negotiation, determine at least one of: information indicating whether the reception indication information includes reception identification information, non-reception identification information, or both the reception identification information and the non-reception identification information; a time of transmitting the reception indication information; or a time of receiving the relay data [Bonde; para 0072-0075] [Linsky; para 0099-0100].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Bonde-Linsky further discloses the at least one second data packet has an access address different from an access address of the at least one first data packet [ie. first packet from source, while second packet is from external device; Bonde; para 0058 and 0065] [Linsky; para 0077].
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Bonde-Linsky further the electronic device to transmit the reception indication information after receiving the at least one first data packet and before a designated reception time of a next data packet subsequent to the at least one first data packet during the audio service [Bonde; fig 11; para 0071-0072].
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Bonde-Linsky further the electronic device to receive the at least one first data packet and transmit the reception indication information at a designated time within a next broadcast isochronous stream (BIS) event [Bonde; fig 11; para 0069 and 0071-0073].
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Bonde-Linsky further the electronic device to transmit the reception indication information through the same physical channel as a physical channel of the at least one first data packet [Bonde; para 0069 and 0072-0073].
Regarding claim 7, the Bonde discloses an electronic device, comprising: memory storing instructions; communication circuitry; and at least one processor, comprising processing circuitry, operatively connected to the communication circuitry, wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor individually and/or collectively [ie. speaker (“electronic device”); Bonde; figures 1 and 2], cause the electronic device to:
establish a communication link with an external electronic device through at least the communication circuitry [ie. soundbar (“external electronic device”); Bonde; para 0056-0057 and 0075];
perform at least part of an audio relay for an audio service with the external electronic device through at least the communication link [ie shares the acknowledgement and retransmission plans (“audio relay”); Bonde; fig 13; para 0075];
receive at least one first data packet broadcast from a source electronic device [ie. source device (“source electronic device”); Bonde; fig 1; para 0052 and 0054];
identify whether reception indication information related to the audio service is received from the external electronic device through the communication link based on the audio relay [ie. help request “reception indication information”; Bonde; para 0072-0073 and 0075]; and
control to transmit, to the external electronic device, relay data including the at least one first data packet received from the source electronic device based on the audio relay negotiation, based on the reception indication information [ie. retransmit payload from missing packet; Bonde; para 0072-0073 and 0078-0079].
The Bonde reference discloses devices can share retransmission plans but does not specifically disclose “audio relay negotiation”.
However, in the same field of endeavor, the Linsky reference discloses audio relay negotiation [Linsky; fig 6; para 0099-0100]. The Bonde and Linsky references are analogous art, since they have similar problem solving area of audio transmission within Bluetooth protocol. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the teaching of negotiation, taught by Linsky, into the system, taught by Blonde. The motivation for doing so would have been to have communication between slave devices.
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Bonde-Linsky further discloses the electronic device to, through the audio relay negotiation, determine at least one of: information indicating whether the reception indication information includes reception identification information, non-reception identification information, or both the reception identification information and the non-reception identification information; a time of receiving the reception indication information; or a time of transmitting the relay data [Bonde; para 0072-0075] [Linsky; para 0099-0100].
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Bonde-Linsky further discloses the electronic device to identify whether the reception indication information is received on the same physical channel as a physical channel of the at least one first data packet after receiving the at least one first data packet and before receiving a next data packet of the at least one first data packet [Bonde; para 0069 and 0072-0073].
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Bonde-Linsky further discloses the electronic device to receive the at least one first data packet and identify whether the reception indication information is received on the same physical channel as the physical channel of the at least one first data packet at a designated time within a next broadcast isochronous stream (BIS) event [Bonde; para 0069 and 0072-0073].
Regarding claims 11-20, the method of claims 11-20 perform the similar steps as the apparatus of claims 1-10. The combination of Bonde-Linsky teaches the apparatus of claims 1-10, as referenced above. Therefore, claims 11-20 are rejected using the same art and rationale set forth above in the rejection of claims 1-10, by the teachings of Bonde-Linsky.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Haggai et al. [PGPUB 2022/0116711] describes BIG and BIS events for two receivers.
Chen et al. [PGPUB 20240394011] describes source and sink devices for broadcasting BIS.
Cook et al. [PGPUB 2012/0058727] describes an audio source sending data to a primary loudspeaker and then to a secondary loudspeaker with acknowledgements.
Young et al. [PGPUB 2021/0306103] describes synchronizing wireless earbuds to receive isochronous data streams.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON D CARDONE whose telephone number is (571)272-3933. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 8am-4pmEST.
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, Umar Cheema can be reached at 571-270-3037. 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.
/JASON D CARDONE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2458
Prosecution Insights