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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on March 23, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 23, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
Halowell does disclose what the Examiner contends
Applicant asserts that “However, element 104 is described throughout Halowell as a "transceiver," not a "first RF stage." No details are given on how Halowell's transceiver works. How could it be obvious to apply the teachings of Zhang to Halowell without knowing what they are being applied to?”
The examiner, however, disagrees.
Halowell in paragraph [0061] discloses that “In some non-limiting embodiments, the first RF communication signal may be an RF communication signal transmitted by transceiver device 104 and/or transceiver device 106 of a plurality of rail vehicles.” Emphasis added. Therefore, the transceiver 104 inherently includes a RF stage.
B. Zhang does teach all that the Examiner contends is taught
Applicant asserts that “First, it appears to applicant that the disclosed embodiments, in particular the embodiment relied on by the Examiner, do not appear to support different RF protocols. Rather, they are, as the title "WIFI Channel Aggregation" suggests, only supporting the aggregation of separate frequency channels operating under the same RF protocol.” Emphasis added.
The examiner, however, disagrees.
Zhang discloses in paragraph [0026] that “Multi-channel communication techniques described below are discussed in the context of wireless local area networks (WLANs) that utilize protocols the same as or similar to protocols defined by the 802.11”. Emphasis added. Zhang further discloses Multi-channel communication techniques in paragraphs [0052], [0054], [0055], [0058].
Accordingly, Zhang discloses plural RF protocols.
In addition, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “different RF protocols”) are not recited in the rejected independent claims 14 and 18). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Applicant asserts that “Second, the Examiner cites paragraphs 0087 and 0113 - which pertain, respectively, to the embodiment of FIG. 5 and to the embodiment of FIG. 7 - as disclosing "signals received in the first RF band are modulated and coded according to a first modulation and coding scheme, and signals received in the second RF band are modulated and coded according to a second modulation and coding scheme different from the first modulation and coding scheme. Applicant submits that these paragraphs pertain to using different MCS index values within the same WiFi protocol - that is, the same modulation framework (OFDM) with different constellation sizes and coding rates selected to adapt to channel conditions.”
The examiner, however, disagrees.
Zhang in paragraphs [0087], [0113] clearly disclose different modulation and coding schemes with different channels, wherein each channel corresponds to each frequency band (see paragraph [0055] which discloses “In an embodiment corresponding to multi-channel operation over a first communication channel and a second communication channel, the first communication channel and the second communication channel may be in separate frequency bands, or within a same frequency band’. Emphasis added). Therefore, Zhang discloses "signals received in the first RF band are modulated and coded according to a first modulation and coding scheme, and signals received in the second RF band are modulated and coded according to a second modulation and coding scheme different from the first modulation and coding scheme”.
Applicant further asserts that “Furthermore, these paragraphs do not appear to disclose or suggest a single baseband processor demodulating signals transmitted according to two different RF protocols, with different modulation and coding schemes, based on the RF stage over which they are received. The claims require a single shared baseband processor that handles signals from both RF stages - receiving, demodulating, generating, and modulating them according to different modulation and coding schemes depending on the RF stage path. Zhang's Figures 3 and 4A show separate baseband processors (Baseband-1, Baseband-2) for each radio chain.” Emphasis added.
The examiner, however, disagrees.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “The claims require a single shared baseband processor”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In addition, just for the sake of argument, Zhang does disclose a single shared baseband processor 474 (see figure 4B; paragraphs [0075], [0167]).
Applicant further asserts that “Third, the Examiner appears to contend that Zhang discloses one or more analog to digital converters coupled with the first and second receiving paths and one or more digital to analog converters coupled with the first and second transmission paths as interfaces between the RF stages and a baseband processor. Zhang's Figure 1 shows a 'PHY 130' as a single, monolithic block connected to TX/RX chains 134-1, 134-2, and 134-3. No discrete ADC or DAC components are shown between the TX/RX chains and the PHY processor. The Examiner cites paragraphs 0032-0034 for ADCs and DACs, but these paragraphs simply describe the functionality at a high level of abstraction without identifying discrete converter components coupled between RF stages and a baseband processor. Zhang's PHY 130 integrates baseband processing, analog-to-digital and digital-to-analog conversion, and transceiver control into a single unit.”
The examiner, however, disagrees.
Zhang in paragraphs [0032], [0033] discloses converting analog to digital, and digital to analog between baseband signal and RF signal.
Applicant further asserts that “Fourth, Zhang does not disclose two RF stages operating independently of each other. They are, as already pointed out, intended to operate synchronously.”
The examiner, however, disagrees.
Zhang in paragraphs [0052], [0061], [0146] discloses independent and asynchronously dual band concurrent (DBC) operations.
Applicant further asserts that “Fifth, the reasoning supporting the rejections fails to consider that the independent operation for simultaneously handling different railway protocols is contrary to Zhang's teaching”.
The examiner, however, disagrees.
First, independent claims 14 and 18 only recite “railway communication” in preamble. Applicant’s arguments rely on language solely recited in preamble recitations in claims 14 and 18. When reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “railway” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Second, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “different railway protocols”) are not recited in the rejected independent claims 14 and 18). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Third, Halowell, the primary reference, discloses railway communications (see at least figure 2, paragraphs [0047], [0048]). Therefore, the combination of Halowell and Zhang as a whole would result independent operation for simultaneously handling railway communications.
C. No Articulated Reasoning with Rational Underpinning for the Combination
Applicant asserts that “The Examiner proposes combining Halowell and Zhang "in order to provide high spectral efficiency and error resistance." The applicant submits that this generic motivation is insufficient under the requirements of KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), and MPEP § 2143. The Examiner has not explained why one of ordinary skill in the art of railway communications would look to a WiFi channel aggregation system (Zhang) to modify an RF communication loss detection system (Halowell) for a single RF link to arrive at a dual-band software-defined radio for railway applications. Halowell and Zhang address entirely different problems in different technical domains.”
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, the motivation to use different modulation and coding schemes (as taught by Zhang) for high spectral efficiency and error resistance is in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Applicant further asserts that “Furthermore, how could it be known that applying Zhang's teachings could achieve high spectral efficiency and error resistance, much less conclude that there is a reasonable expectation of success, when the structure and operation of Halowell's transceiver is not disclosed? Halowell provides only the concept that radios in two rail vehicles communicate via RF using a messaging protocol such as AAR S-9152. Zhang provides a WiFi-specific multi-channel system with monolithic PHY processing and synchronized baseband operation. Combining these references would, at best, yield a railway transceiver system with WiFi-style channel aggregation on the same protocol - not a dual-band software-defined radio with independent RF stages, discrete ADC/DAC interfaces to a shared baseband processor, and protocol-specific modulation and demodulation for different railway RF link types.”
The examiner, however, disagrees.
As Halowell is modified with Zhang, circuit structures and operations as taught by Zhang, especially with plural modulation and coding schemes, would help Halowell to achieve high spectral efficiency and error resistance.
D. Traverse of Official Notice
It is noted that no Official Notice have been taken in the rejections to claims 9, 11, 15, and 20. Therefore, applicant’s arguments are moot.
E. Claim 14 and Dependent claims
The rejections of the claim 14 and all the dependent claims rely on the combination of Halowell and Zhang as applied to claims 22 and 18. They are therefore discussed for same reasons as set forth above.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner contends that the rejections to claims are proper.
Drawings
The drawings were received on March 23, 2026. These drawings are acceptable.
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 2-3, 5, 10-11, 13, 18-19, 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halowell (US 2020/0207388) in view of Zhang (US 2019/0123863).
As to claim 22, Halowell discloses a radio for communication of railway application data (see at figure 2, paragraphs [0047], [0048]) comprising: a first RF stage 104 with a first receiving path for receiving signals in a first RF band transmitted in accordance with a first RF protocol for railway industry wireless communication and a first transmission path for transmitting signals in the first RF band according to the first RF protocol (see paragraphs [0047, [0048]. Halowell fails to disclose a second RF stage with a second receiving path for receiving signals in a second RF band transmitted in accordance with a second RF protocol for railway industry wireless communication and a second transmission path for transmitting signals in the second RF band according to the second railway RF protocol, the first and second RF stages operating independently of each other; one or more analog to digital converters coupled with the first and second receiving paths for converting analog signals from the first and second RF stages to digital baseband signals; and one or more digital to analog converters coupled with the first and second transmission paths for converting digital baseband signals generated by a baseband processor to baseband analog signals; wherein, signals received in the first RF band are modulated and coded according to a first modulation and coding scheme, and signals received in the second RF band are modulated and coded according to a second modulation and coding scheme different from the first modulation and coding scheme; and wherein the baseband processor is configured to: receive and demodulate the digital baseband signals from the first and second receiving paths, each digital baseband signal received being demodulated according the first modulation and coding scheme if received from the first receiving path and the second modulation and coding scheme if received from the second receiving path, and generate digital baseband signals for transmission, each of the digital baseband signals being modulated and coded according to a selection of the first transmission path or the second transmission path for transmitting the baseband signal.
Zhang discloses a second RF stage 134-2 (see at least figure 1) with a second receiving path for receiving signals in a second RF band transmitted in accordance with a second RF protocol for wireless communication and a second transmission path for transmitting signals in the second RF band according to the second RF protocol, the first and second RF stages 134-1 and 134-2 operating independently of each other (see paragraphs [0052], [0054], [0055], [0058]); one or more analog to digital converters coupled with the first and second receiving paths for converting analog signals from the first and second RF stages to digital baseband signals (see paragraphs [0033], [0034]); and one or more digital to analog converters coupled with the first and second transmission paths for converting digital baseband signals generated by a baseband processor 130 to baseband analog signals (see paragraphs [0032], [0034]); wherein, signals received in the first RF band are modulated and coded according to a first modulation and coding scheme, and signals received in the second RF band are modulated and coded according to a second modulation and coding scheme different from the first modulation and coding scheme (see paragraphs [see paragraphs [0087], [0113]); and wherein the baseband processor 130 is configured to: receive and demodulate the digital baseband signals from the first and second receiving paths, each digital baseband signal received being demodulated according the first modulation and coding scheme if received from the first receiving path and the second modulation and coding scheme if received from the second receiving path (see paragraphs [0087], [0113], [0153]), and generate digital baseband signals for transmission, each of the digital baseband signals being modulated and coded according to a selection of the first transmission path or the second transmission path for transmitting the baseband signal (see paragraphs [0087], [0113], [0147], [0153]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Zhang to Halowell, in order to provide high spectral efficiency and error resistance.
As to claim 2, the combination of Halowell and Zhang discloses that the first RF stage 134-1 comprises a first transceiver TX/RX and the second RF stage 134-2 comprises a second transceiver Tx/RX (see Zhang, at least figure 1).
As to claim 3, the combination of Halowell and Zhang discloses that the first transceiver 134-1 is coupled to a first antenna 138-1 and the second transceiver 134-2 is coupled to a second antenna 138-2 (see Zhang, at least figure 1).
As to claim 5, the combination of Halowell and Zhang discloses that the first receiving path is comprised of a first receiver RX 134-1, the second receiving path is comprised of a second receiver RX 134-2, the first transmission path is comprised of a first transmitter TX 134-1, and the second transmission path is comprised of a second transmitter TX 134-2 (see Zhang, at least figure 1).
As to claims 10, 19, Halowell discloses AAR S-9152, and an ITCR (see paragraphs [0050], and [0064]). Therefore, as the combination of Halowell and Zhang is made, it would disclose that a first one the two or more different modulation and coding schemes is specified by AAR S-9152, and the other is an ITCR modulation and coding scheme.
As to claim 11, the combination of Halowell and Zhang fails to disclose that the first RF band is a 450 MHz band and the second RF band is a 220 MHz band. Those skilled in the art would recognize that these claimed limitations do not involve any inventive concept. They merely depend on arbitrary operating RF bands to be used. In addition, the specification of the instant application fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from using 450 MHz band, and 220 MHz band. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Halowell and Zhang as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as providing more services to the users.
As to claim 13, the combination of Halowell and Zhang discloses that the radio is configured for an end of train (EOT) unit for transporting EOT messages (see Halowell, paragraphs [0047, and [0048]).
As to claim 18, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to claim 22 as set forth above. Zhang further discloses simultaneous reception of data signals transmitted on a first radio frequency (RF) link in a first RF band and on a second RF link in a second RF frequency band separated from the first RF frequency band (see at least paragraph [0007]).
As to claim 21, the combination of Halowell and Zhang discloses that the baseband processor is configured to generate modulated and coded baseband data signals according to the first modulating and coding scheme if the first RF link is selected for transmission and to the second modulation and coding scheme if the second RF link is selected for transmission (see paragraphs [0087], [0113], [0153]); the one or more digital to analog converters converted the modulated and coded base data signal from the base band processor (see paragraphs [0032], [0034]); the radio is configured to transmit baseband data signals for the first RF link using the first transmission path through the first RF stage and transmit baseband data signals for the second RF link using the second transmission path through the second RF stage (see paragraphs [0087], [0113], [0147], [0153]).
Claims 4, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halowell (US 2020/0207388) in view of Zhang (US 2019/0123863) as applied to claims 2, 5 above, and further in view of Saari (US 2003/0124982).
As to claim 4, the combination of Halowell and Zhang fails to disclose that the first and second transceivers are coupled to a shared antenna through one or more of a bandpass filter, a splitter, and a switch. Saari discloses that a first transceiver 122 and a second transceiver 112 are coupled to a shared antenna 101 through one or more of a bandpass filter, a splitter, and a switch 502 (see figure 2, paragraph [0082]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Saari to the combination of Halowell and Zhang, in order to yield predictable results such as reducing the implement cost, weight and size of the radio.
As to claim 7, the combination of Halowell and Zhang fails to disclose that the first transmitter TX 134-1 (see Zhang, at least figure 1) and the second transmitter TX 134-2 each have an output coupled with an antenna through a switch that selects either the output of either of the first or the second transmitter to the antenna. Saari discloses using a switch 502 to select either output of either of first or second transmitter 112, 122 to an antenna 101 (see figure 2, paragraph [0082]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Saari to the combination of Halowell and Zhang, in order to yield predictable results such as reducing the implement cost, weight and size of the radio.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halowell (US 2020/0207388) in view of Zhang (US 2019/0123863) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Sasaki (US 2009/0289739).
As to claim 6, the combination of Halowell and Zhang fails to disclose that the first transmitter TX 134-1 (see Zhang, at least figure 1) and the second transmitter TX 134-2 each have an input coupled to the one or more digital to analog converters through a switch that connects the input of either the first or the second transmitter to the one or more digital to analog converters. Sasaki discloses that a first transmitter 55 (see at least figure 6) and a second transmitter 53 each have an input coupled to one or more digital to analog converters 33 through a switch 57 that connects the input of either the first or the second transmitter to the one or more digital to analog converters 33. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Sasaki to the combination of Halowell and Zhang, in order to allow the one or more digital to analog converters to be shared by the transmitters.
Claims 8-9, 14-15, 17, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halowell (US 2020/0207388) in view of Zhang (US 2019/0123863) as applied to claims 22, 14, 18 above, and further in view of Chen (US 2017/0207878).
As to claim 8, the combination of Halowell and Zhang fails to disclose three or more different modulation and coding schemes. Chen discloses that a wireless device may use at least three modulation and coding schemes (see paragraph [0036]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Chen to the combination of Halowell and Zhang, in order to further ensure reliable data reception.
As to claims 9, 15, the combination of Halowell, Zhang, and Chen fails to disclose that the two of the three or more different modulation and coding schemes are for signals transmitted or received in the first RF band. Those skilled in the art would recognize that these claimed limitations do not involve any inventive concept. They merely depend on an arbitrary number of different modulation and coding schemes to be used in the first RF band. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Halowell, Zhang, and Chen, in order to further ensure reliable data reception.
As to claim 14, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to claims 22, 8, and 10 as set forth above.
As to claim 17, the combination of Halowell, Zhang, and Chen discloses that the radio is configured for an end of train (EOT) unit for transporting EOT messages (see Halowell, paragraphs [0047, and [0048]).
As to claim 20, it is rejected for similar reasons with respect to claim 8 as set forth above. The combination of Halowell, Zhang, and Chen further discloses a third RF link (see Zhang, figure 1, third transceiver 134-3), and a third modulation and coding scheme that is different from the first modulation and coding scheme (See Chen, paragraph [0036]). The combination of Halowell, Zhang, and Chen fails to expressly disclose the third RF link being in the second RF band data signals transmitted on the first RF link being transmitted according to the third modulation and coding scheme. Those skilled in the art would recognize that these claimed limitations do not involve any inventive concept. They merely depend on an arbitrary RF band to be for the third RF link. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Halowell, Zhang, and Chen, in order to further ensure reliable data reception.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halowell (US 2020/0207388) in view of Zhang (US 2019/0123863) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Braun (US 2022/0407556).
As to claim 12, the combination of Halowell and Zhang fails to disclose that the baseband processor is comprised of at least one field-programmable gate array (FPGA) that has been configured by programming. Braun discloses such a field-programmable gate array (FPGA). See at least paragraph [0019]. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Braun to the combination of Halowell and Zhang, in order to yield predictable results such as high parallel processing performance, flexibility through reprogrammability.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halowell (US 2020/0207388) in view of Zhang (US 2019/0123863), Chen (US 2017/0207878) as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Braun (US 2022/0407556).
As to claim 16, the combination of Halowell, Zhang, and Chen fails to disclose that the baseband processor is comprised of at least one field-programmable gate array (FPGA) that has been configured by programming. Braun discloses such a field-programmable gate array (FPGA). See at least paragraph [0019]. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Braun to the combination of Halowell, Zhang, and Chen, in order to yield predictable results such as high parallel processing performance, flexibility through reprogrammability.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Adachi (US 9,307,533), Li (US 11,729,813) disclose using different modulation and coding schemes.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646