DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/19/2025 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1 - 17 are presented for examination. This Action is made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is objected for not being descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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 -17 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 new 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.
Under close examination for claims 1 and 8, the Applicant’s original filed specification
and/or drawings fail to address the newly added limitations e.g., “the first wireless communication unit is configured to be further electrically coupled a motherboard of the server through the carrier.,” or the like. Furthermore, the phrase “motherboard” is nowhere to be found in the filed spec. Applicant fails to distinctly point out on the remark section where the amended limitations can be found. The Examiner respectfully request the Applicant to withdraw all the new matter added to the current examination.
Applicant is welcome to point out where in the specification and/or drawings the Examiner can find support for the newly-added limitations if Applicant believes otherwise.
All dependent claims based on the rejected base claim are also rejected.
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 of this title, 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 1-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 20150271340 A1) in view of Albright et al. (US 20220352099 A1).
For claims 1 and 8, Yu discloses a wireless communication module (220/430) configured to be installed on a server (200) (Fig. 2, a wireless device designed to be attached to a server) [0034, 0057], wherein:
the wireless communication module comprising a carrier (circuit module) [0266] and a first wireless communication unit (The device includes two main parts: a carrier (like a base circuit module) and a first wireless part that sends/receives signals.) [0058-60],
the first wireless communication unit is arranged on the carrier, and is electrically coupled to the carrier (Fig. 2, the wireless part sits on the carrier and is also connected electrically to the circuit module.) [0034, 0266, 0057],
the first wireless communication unit is configured to be controlled by the server via the carrier to emit and/or receive the radio wave (Fig. 2, The server 200 can control the wireless part through the circuit module to send and/or pick up radio signals.) [0266, 0057-60].
the first wireless communication unit is configured to be further electrically coupled a circuit module of the server through the carrier (The circuit module is built to connect electrically to the server.) [0034, 0266, 0057].
But Yu doesn’t explicitly teach the carrier is a PCB;
a circuit module is a motherboard.
However, Albright discloses the carrier is a PCB [0057, 0065, 0069].
the first wireless communication unit is configured to be further electrically coupled a motherboard (300) of the server through the carrier (Fig. 3 mainboard 300, Page 40 claim 17) [0074-76].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing mobile hardware and software used in an electronic device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yu with Albright to ensure proper hardware and software can be installed, thus, improving system performance and efficiency.
Claim 8 differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior arts. The cited prior art Yu further discloses a server comprising a wireless communication module [0034, 0057].
All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claims 2 and 9, Yu as modified by Albright, Albright further discloses the carrier is a printed circuit board (The circuit module is just a printed circuit board — the flat board with circuits on it.) [0057, 0065, 0069]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
For claims 3 and 10, Yu as modified by Albright, Albright further discloses the carrier is configured to be electrically coupled to the server via a universal serial bus, the first wireless communication unit is configured to be controlled by the server via the carrier and the universal serial bus to emit and/or receive the radio wave (The carrier connects to the server through a USB port, and the server uses this connection to control the wireless unit to send/receive radio signals.) [0243, 0252, 0262]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
For claims 4 and 12, Yu, as modified by Albright, discloses the wireless communication module further comprises a second wireless communication unit (221) (Fig. 2, the module also includes a second wireless part:) [0058-60],
the second wireless communication unit is arranged on the carrier, and is electrically coupled to the carrier (Fig. 2, the second wireless unit is placed on the circuit module and connected to it.) [0058-60];
Albright further discloses the carrier is configured to be electrically coupled to the server via a peripheral component interconnect express bus (Fig. 26-33, the circuit module connects to the server using a PCIe bus (a high-speed computer connection).) [0241, 0255, 0262, 0273];
the second wireless communication unit is configured to be controlled by the server via the carrier and the peripheral component interconnect express bus to emit and/or receive the radio wave (Fig. 26-33, the server controls the second wireless part using the circuit module and the PCIe bus to send/receive signals.) [0241, 0255, 0262, 0273]. See motivation to combine the references from the above.
For claims 5 and 14, Yu, as modified by Albright, discloses the first wireless communication unit uses a long term evolution communication technology or a 5G communication technology, and the second wireless communication unit uses a wireless fidelity communication technology (The first wireless part uses LTE for communication, while the second wireless part uses Wi-Fi.) [0098, 0053].
For claims 6 and 15, Yu, as modified by Albright, discloses the wireless communication module further comprises a temperature detection unit (The module also has a temperature sensor 240J:) [0057, 0066],
the temperature detection unit is arranged on the carrier, and is electrically coupled to the carrier (Fig. 2, the temperature sensor 240J is placed on the circuit module and connected to it.) [0066, 0266, 0057];
the temperature detection unit is electrically coupled to the server via the carrier (The temperature sensor connects to the server through the circuit module.) [0066, 0266, 0057];
the temperature detection unit is arranged adjacent the first wireless communication unit (The sensor is located close to the first wireless part.) [0066, 0266, 0057];
the temperature detection unit is configured to detect a temperature of the first wireless communication unit, and is configured to provide the temperature of the first wireless communication unit to the server via the carrier (It can measure the wireless part's temperature and sends that information to the server 200.) [0066, 0266, 0057].
For claims 7 and 17, Yu, as modified by Albright, discloses the wireless communication module further comprises a positioning unit (The module also includes a GPS or positioning sensor:) [0036, 0061-62],
the positioning unit is arranged on the carrier, and is electrically coupled to the carrier (The GPS unit is placed on and connected to the circuit module.) [0036, 0061-62];
the positioning unit is configured to be electrically coupled to the server via the carrier, and is configured to provide position information to the server via the carrier (It connects through the circuit module to the server and gives the server its position.) [0036, 0061-62].
For claim 11, Yu as modified by Albright, Albright further discloses the server further comprises a central processing unit and a platform controller hub (Fig. 26-33, the server also has a CPU and a PCH (a controller that manages input/output operations)) [0241-244],
the central processing unit is electrically coupled to the platform controller hub (Fig. 26-33, the CPU is connected to the controller hub.) [0241-244],
the platform controller hub is electrically coupled to the carrier via the universal serial bus, and is electrically coupled to the first wireless communication unit via the universal serial bus and the carrier (Fig. 26-33, the hub connects to the circuit module through a USB connection, and through that, to the wireless unit.) [0241-244],
the central processing unit controls the first wireless communication unit to emit and/or receive the radio wave via the platform controller hub, the universal serial bus, and the carrier (Fig. 26-33, the CPU manages the wireless unit's signal sending/receiving through the hub, USB, and circuit module.) [0241-244].
For claim 13, Yu as modified by Albright, Albright further discloses the server further comprises a central processing unit and a platform controller hub (Fig. 26-33, the server also has a CPU and PCH (platform controller hub)) [0241-244],
the central processing unit is electrically coupled to the platform controller hub (Fig. 26-33, the CPU connects to the platform controller hub.) [0241-244],
the platform controller hub is electrically coupled to the carrier via the peripheral component interconnect express bus, and is electrically coupled to the second wireless communication unit via the peripheral component interconnect express bus and the carrier (Fig. 26-33, the hub connects to the circuit module and the second wireless part using the PCIe bus.) [0241-244],
the central processing unit controls the second wireless communication unit to emit and/or receive the radio wave via the platform controller hub, the peripheral component interconnect express bus, and the carrier (The CPU controls the second wireless part’s signal activities through the hub, PCIe, and circuit module.) [0241-244].
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 20150271340 A1) in view of Albright et al. (US 20220352099 A1) in further view of Huang (US 20050086460 A1).
For claim 16, Yu as modified by Albright, Albright further discloses the server further comprises a baseboard management controller (2634/2616/2730) (the server also has a management controller that oversees hardware) [0243-245],
the baseboard management controller is electrically coupled to the carrier via the inter-integrated circuit bus (The management controller connects to the circuit module using an IC bus.) [0057, 0237, 0258].
the baseboard management controller is electrically coupled to the temperature detection unit via the inter-integrated circuit bus and the carrier (It also connects to the temperature sensor using the same IC bus through the circuit module.) [0057, 0237, 0258].
But Yu, as modified by Albright, doesn’t explicitly teach when the server is not being activated, the baseboard management controller is configured to obtain the temperature of the first wireless communication unit from the temperature detection unit via the inter-integrated circuit bus and the carrier, and
monitor whether a potential failure of the first wireless communication unit is existed according to the temperature of the first wireless communication unit.
However, Huang discloses when the server is not being activated (Fig. 2, during sleep mode, abnormal off state) [0032, 0029], the baseboard management controller is configured to obtain the temperature of the first wireless communication unit from the temperature detection unit via the inter-integrated circuit bus and the carrier [0040-43], and
monitor whether a potential failure of the first wireless communication unit is existed according to the temperature of the first wireless communication unit (Even when the electronic device is in sleep or off, the management controller can still read the wireless unit's temperature and check if it might be failing.) [0040-43].
Since, all are analogous arts addressing mobile hardware and software used in an electronic device; Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teachings of Yu and Albright with Huang to ensure critical system information can be properly monitored and corrective action can be taken, thus, improving system operations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/19/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the references failing to teach every element recited in the independent claims; the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments by the Applicant. Even though, the Examiner acknowledges Applicant's invention may possess some novel features, the claims are written too broad that can be read on the current cited prior art(s). Further actions must be taken to explicitly claim those novel features of the current application.
With regards to the argument for the limitation “…the first wireless communication unit is configured to be further electrically coupled a motherboard of the server through the carrier”, the Examiner asserts that Albright discloses on Fig. 3 mainboard 300, for the first wireless communication element is electrically connected to a motherboard of the server through the PCB. See Page 40 claim 17, and paragraph [0074-76].
ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS
NECESSARY
The arguments made by the counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. The Applicant representative’s arguments for the obvious reason to combine the implicit and explicit teaching of the cited reference(s) failed to provide factual support to sustain the ground of arguments. The mere statement of disagreement of the prior art made by the Applicant’s representative cannot be served as evidence for support. Please see the following case law for detail:
In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
ARGUING AGAINST REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck and Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As discussed above, it is apparent that the Applicant's cited limitations, elements, and arguments have already been disclosed by the relevant prior art(s) or were thoroughly addressed by the Examiner. Additionally, the current Office Action provides further elaboration on the explicit and implicit teachings of the aforementioned disclosed reference(s). It is important to note that any justifications and citations utilized in the preceding Office Action which were not contested by the Applicant shall be regarded as an implicit admission by the Applicant on the matter at hand.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights