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 .
Status of Claims
In a response filed 1/14/2026, no amendments were made. This response is acknowledged. Claims 1-20 are pending and are currently being examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: in the second to last line of paragraph [0087] (in the application file dated 1/5/2021) or paragraph [0089] of the US Pub. No. 2021/0148686), “forth” should read “fourth”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 13, it is unclear if “a second signal output” should instead read “a second signal size” to match the previous introduction of “a first signal size” in lines 12-13. The limitation “a second signal output” may be intended to be claimed, however it is unclear if this would be the same thing as “second output” in line 11 or if these are two distinct and separate limitations. Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-20 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,914,561. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the only difference is the data signals being transmitted at a first power level and second power level distinct from the first vs. transmitted at a first signal output/size and a second signal output/size distinct from the first signal value, one of which is at a maximum size of at least 5% of a maximum power of the digital amplifier, the sensor detecting a “movement” vs. a “flight state” (which is a movement), and the broadcasted data signals being data “frames” (which are signals). Looking to the specification, the “size” is not expressly defined and therefore it is unclear exactly what the signal “size” would define and encompass in the claims (scope). It is assumed to be likely that the inventor is intending to define the value/size as a power level defined in terms of a percentage of the maximum power level of the amplifier as described in the specification ([0087] (in the application file, [0089] in the publication) discusses “For example, four data frames may be transmitted in succession by the elongated body (e.g. 20), each of the four data frames including a distinct signal code and transmitted at a distinct power level. A first data frame may, for example, be transmitted at a maximum power. A second data frame may, for example, be transmitted at 50 percent of the maximum power. A third data frame may, for example, be transmitted at 25 percent of the maximum power. A forth data frame may, for example, be transmitted at 5 percent of the maximum power”) which is more specific or a different/broader/narrower limitation than the patented claims, but is still within a level of ordinary skill to arrive at the claimed relative values as it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not fully persuasive.
The 112(a) and 112(b) rejections are withdrawn as the examiner agrees that one of ordinary skill in the art should understand the terminology used as argued.
The deferral of the non-statutory double patenting fix (filing a terminal disclaimer) is acknowledged. The arguments that the non-statutory double patenting rejection should be withdrawn as the presented claim is broader than the patented claims is not found persuasive as the patent claims anticipate the presented claims and therefore even if the claim language is slightly different in wording and broader, non-statutory double patenting is not overcome by this as the patented claims would anticipated the presented claims and therefore requires a terminal disclaimer.
The specification objection remains deferred and therefore is upheld. The applicant has acknowledged the issue but is deferring addressing it until the application is in condition for allowance. If it is preferred or if this issue isn’t addressed the examiner can fix this problem via examiner’s amendment when the claims are otherwise in condition for allowance.
The claims would now be in condition for allowance when a terminal disclaimer is filed and the objections are corrected. The examiner has provided a proposed amendment that would provide clear and concrete definition to the distinct signals. This amendment or a similarly defined amendment would appear to overcome the discussed issues. If the applicant would prefer to talk about this amendment or other similar amendments they are encouraged to call the examiner and have an interview.
Potentially Allowable Subject Matter
The following portion of claim 1 drafted by the examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application, is presented to applicant for consideration:
The first and second signal “size”/”output” section of the claim could more clearly be presented as
“wherein the transmitter is operable to transmit a plurality of data signals, a first signal frame of the plurality of data signals transmitted at a first power level being a first percentage of a maximum power of the digital amplifier and a second signal frame of the plurality of data signals transmitted at a second power level being a second percentage of a maximum power of the digital amplifier, the first power level being distinct from the second power level, wherein one of the first signal frame and the second signal frame is transmitted at a power level of at least 5% of a maximum power of the digital amplifier.
This more clearly defines that each signal frame or signal size is defined as a power level specifically being a percentage of the maximum power of the digital amplifier and not just potentially one of the signals or one of the signal characteristics/frames as presented. This requires that each signal has a power level being a distinct relative value of which the other signals may be easily and clearly compared to on the same playing field and removes any other potentially broad reading of what the size could potentially be. This would not necessarily overcome the obvious double patenting rejection, however filing a terminal disclaimer would overcome that rejection and place the claims in general condition for allowance.
Brief Discussion of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the references cited page for publications that are noted for containing similar subject matter as the applicant. For example, Donahoe (10,401,118, 8,221,273), Zusman (9,075,124) and Ledbetter (9,557,148) teach similar arrow tracking devices.
Conclusion
If the applicant or applicant’s representation has any questions or concerns regarding this office action or the application they are welcome to contact the examiner at the phone number listed below and schedule and interview to discuss the outstanding issues and possible amendments to expedite prosecution of this application.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH whose telephone number is (571)270-7419. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8-6 MST.
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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571) 270-1775. 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.
/ALEXANDER R NICONOVICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711