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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 3/11/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but not all of the information referred to therein has been considered.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 12/08/2022. These drawings are acceptable.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 6/30/2025 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) is withdrawn as Shefer does not disclose that the antenna includes two omnidirectional antennas. Applicant’s arguments directed to what the receiver does with the phase difference information, concerning the claimed “wherein the phase difference information is used for…” are not persuasive, as the receiver is not a part of the claimed invention. The flight guidance apparatus, comprising a transmission antenna and wireless transmission circuit is not limited by functions of the receiver which receives its transmitted signals. If the intent is for the claim to be inclusive of the receiver functionality it is suggested that the claims be directed to a system, with the receiver as a component thereof.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/077,245 (reference application), respectively. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the reference application claim 2 clearly anticipates claim 1.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 1-4 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Claim 1 is amended to require at least two omnidirectional antennas, and originally requires a wireless transmission circuit configured to generate a signal “encoded with transmission direction information based on a transmission axis of the transmission antenna”.
It appears that the amendment to specify “omnidirectional” antennas conflates distinct embodiments of the invention, as there is no disclosure teaching how, in the context of an omnidirectional antenna embodiment, signals are encoded “based on a transmission axis” of the antenna. Notably, omnidirectional antennas by definition transmit in all directions in a plane and have no particular “transmission axis” as used in the current context, and none is described by the specification in the context of omnidirectional antennas. Rather, the specification specifically indicates that an embodiment using omnidirectional antennas “does not necessarily have to transmit an RF signal, which includes encoded information about a phase difference, only in a direction corresponding to the phase difference” at page 5, lines 16-18 of the substitute specification, suggesting the phase difference (“transmission direction information as claimed”) is not “based on” a transmission axis in such an embodiment.
In contrast, the “transmission axis” is described at page 7, lines 3-14, in an embodiment featuring vertical and horizontal antennas “having the same transmission axis”. It is also here that the wireless transmission circuit is described to generate “at least one RF signal encoded with transmission direction information based on the transmission axis to the transmission antennas”, i.e. as expressed in the original claim language. It is noted that this disclosure of the antennas having a common transmission axis is further incorporated in claim 2, which likewise appears incompatible with the omnidirectional antennas per claim 1. Further, claim 3 specifically requires a “directional controller” to “cause the transmission antenna to face the target”. This clearly describes a directional antenna rather than an omnidirectional antenna and is incompatible with such an embodiment. It is also noted that while antenna 15 of Figure 1 is described as including omnidirectional antennas, the illustration clearly suggests a directional antenna to one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g. reflector type antenna directed to face the target).
Considered in its entirety, the specification does not describe an omnidirectional antenna embodiment where the antenna has a “transmission axis” on which transmission direction information encoded for transmission is based so as to enable one of ordinary skill in the art to make and use the invention. Rather, the amendment to require omnidirectional antennas appears to mix features of incompatible embodiments, i.e. directional vs. omnidirectional antennas. The specification fails to disclose how transmission direction information could be based on a “transmission axis” of the antenna in an omnidirectional embodiment, given that no transmission axis is described in the context of omnidirectional antennas, nor would any be expected or known to one of ordinary skill in the art to the extent that it could be basis for “transmission direction information”. Claims 2-4 depend on claim 1 and are likewise fail to comply with the enablement requirement.
.
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 1-4 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 1 requires “the transmission direction information is phase difference information of a receiver that will receive the RF signal”. It is not clear what it means for a receiver itself to have “phase difference information” in the claimed context. A receiver would not conventionally have a “phase difference” itself, nor is it clear what such would mean. From the specification it appears it may be the intent to indicate phase difference information for a receiver, as it is described that a receiver receives the RF signals and decodes the phase difference information.
Also concerning claim 1, the claim is amended to require at least two omnidirectional antennas, and originally requires a wireless transmission circuit configured to generate a signal “encoded with transmission direction information based on a transmission axis of the transmission antenna”. It is not clear in this context what “a transmission axis of the transmission antenna” refers to, as omnidirectional antennas by definition emit signals in all directions in a plane. In turn, the metes and bounds of what “transmission direction information” (later clarified as “phase difference information”), said to be “based on” a particular transmission axis cannot be determined. As discussed above, the specification appears to disclose a directional antenna embodiment where this phase difference information is “based on” the direction the antenna is facing (e.g. at a target, per claim 3), this direction of transmission being a transmission axis. It is not clear how this would or could apply to an omnidirectional embodiment, as such is not described.
Claims 2-4 depend on claim 1 and are likewise indefinite.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 Matthew M Barker whose telephone number is (571)272-3103. The examiner can normally be reached M, W, Th, Fri 8:00 AM-4:30 PM Eastern Time.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 571-273-6878. 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.
/MATTHEW M BARKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646