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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-15, 17-19, and 21-23 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.
Upon further review of the Patent Board Decision (BD) mailed on 08/24/2026, the Board agreed and/or found the Examiner persuasive that the combination or collection of Dutta and Lee teaches the limitations of the independent claims 1, 9 and 18 (see e.g. BD, pages 22-26). Thus, found the Appellant unpersuasive that the claimed invention i.e. independent claims 1, 9, and 18 is allowable over the prior arts on record.
Although, the Board disagrees with the Examiner’s prima facie case of obviousness i.e. improper motivational statement to combine the prior art references Dutta and lee. Thus, shifting the burden to the Examiner to further explain why modifying Dutta and Lee would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (see e.g. BD, pages 33-35).
Therefore, the Appellant is kindly directed to the further prior art analysis and/or rejections below with respect to the newly amended claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claim 21 is 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.
The claim recited limitation i.e. at least in part “wherein, the LMR codeplug comprises the channel definition and the trunked talkgroup definition for an LMR network”. Therefore, as highlighted above, the at least term or phrase “an LMR network” was not mentioned and/or clearly described in the original specification on file. Therefore, the claimed limitation encompasses new matter which is not clearly defined and thus changed the scope of the invention.
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 21 and 23 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.
Claims 21 and 23 recite the limitation "the trunked talkgroup definition" in the second line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
For examination purposes, the rejected claims have been given their broadest reasonable interpretations.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 6, 8-10, 14, 15, 17-19, and 21-23, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta et al. (US Publication No. 20210267008) in view of Lee et al. (US Publication No. 20080064332).
As to claims 1, 9, and 18, Dutta teaches a hub device (fig. 3, UE 115-a), a land mobile radio unit (fig. 3, UE 115-b) and a method for configuring a land mobile radio (LMR), the method comprising: providing a hub device comprising: a hub memory; a hub communication interface; and a hub processor operably coupled to the hub memory and the hub communication interface (fig. 3, fig. 10) ; storing an LMR codeplug in the hub memory (fig. 3, DTX configuration); providing a destination LMR device comprising: a destination LMR memory; a LMR destination communication interface; and a LMR destination processor operably coupled to the destination LMR memory and the destination LMR communication interface (fig. 3, UE 115-b, and fig. 10); establishing communication between the hub communication interface and the destination LMR communication interface (fig. 3, #205); transmitting the LMR codeplug from the hub memory to the destination LMR memory (fig. 3, #205, and pp0131); controlling the destination LMR device to implement the LMR codeplug (fig. 3, #205, pp0131, and pp0132, determine DRX configuration based on the received DTX configuration). However, Dutta fails to explicitly teach wherein the LMR codeplug comprises at least one of: a channel definition comprising: a radio frequency for transmit; a radio frequency for receive; and a squelch code for transmit and receive.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Lee teaches wherein the LMR codeplug comprises at least one of: a channel definition comprising: a radio frequency for transmit; a radio frequency for receive; and a squelch code for transmit and receive (fig. 1, pp0015, pp0020, for configuration of mobile communications device 106, information in the signal 122 may include one of a squelch code ID, a signal preamble code, a service set identifier (SSID) for IEEE 802.11 or WiFi wireless communications, token ID, frequency, channel or other information for communications). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Dutta with the teachings of Lee to achieve the goal of efficiently using configuration data to provide efficient, safe servicing, and support for two-way communications in a wireless communication system (Lee, pp0002, pp0006).
As to claims 2 and 10, Dutta in view of Lee teaches the limitations of the independent claims. Dutta further teaches wherein the hub device is a smartphone, a tablet computer, a laptop computer, or a desktop computer (fig. 3, 115-a, and pp0139).
As to claims 6, 14, and 19, Dutta in view of Lee teaches the limitations of the independent claims. Dutta further teaches wherein the establishing communication between the hub communication interface and the destination LMR communication interface comprises (fig. 3, #205, and pp0131): establishing a wireless communication connection between the hub communication interface and the destination LMR communication interface (fig. 3, #205, and pp0131), wherein the wireless communication connection is one of a Bluetooth connection, a wireless LAN connection, or a near field communication (NFC) connection (fig. 1, fig. 3, #205, and pp0178, pp0402).
As to claims 8 and 17, Dutta in view of Lee teaches the limitations of the independent claims. Dutta further teaches wherein: the destination LMR device is one of a plurality of client devices (fig. 3, UE 115-b and UE 115-c); and the hub device is configured to broadcast the LMR codeplug to the plurality of client devices (fig. 3, UE 115-b, UE 115-c, and pp0131, UE (e.g., a transmitter UE) may broadcast or transmit a DTX configuration to all UEs or a group of UEs over multiple connections (e.g., multiple sidelink connections)).
As to claim 15, Dutta in view of Lee teaches the limitations of the independent claims. Dutta further teaches wherein: the LMR codeplug is one of a plurality of LMR codeplugs; and the hub device is configured to transmit the plurality of LMR codeplugs to the destination LMR unit (fig. 3, and pp0131, UE (e.g., a transmitter UE) may broadcast or transmit a DTX configuration to all UEs or a group of UEs over multiple connections (e.g., multiple sidelink connections), and pp0132, one or multiple received DTX configurations).
As to claim 21, Dutta in view of Lee teaches the limitations of the independent claims. However, Dutta fails to explicitly teach wherein, the LMR codeplug comprises the channel definition and the trunked talkgroup definition for an LMR network.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Lee teaches wherein, the LMR codeplug comprises the channel definition and the trunked talkgroup definition (SSID i.e. system or network ID) for an LMR network (fig. 1, pp0015, pp0020, for configuration of mobile communications device 106, information in the signal 122 may include one of a squelch code ID, a signal preamble code, a service set identifier (SSID) for IEEE 802.11 or WiFi wireless communications, token ID, frequency, channel or other information for communications, and pp0042). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Dutta with the teachings of Lee to achieve the goal of efficiently using configuration data to provide efficient, safe servicing, and support for two-way communications in a wireless communication system (Lee, pp0002, pp0006).
As to claim 22, Dutta in view of Lee teaches the limitations of the independent claims. However, Dutta fails to explicitly teach wherein: the channel definition is one of a plurality of channel definitions; and the LMR codeplug comprises the plurality of channel definitions.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Lee teaches wherein: the channel definition is one of a plurality of channel definitions; and the LMR codeplug comprises the plurality of channel definitions (fig. 1, pp0015, pp0020, for configuration of mobile communications device 106, information in the signal 122 may include one of a squelch code ID, a signal preamble code, a service set identifier (SSID) for IEEE 802.11 or WiFi wireless communications, token ID, frequency, channel or other information for communications, and pp0042). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Dutta with the teachings of Lee to achieve the goal of efficiently using configuration data to provide efficient, safe servicing, and support for two-way communications in a wireless communication system (Lee, pp0002, pp0006).
As to claim 23, Dutta in view of Lee teaches the limitations of the independent claims. However, Dutta fails to explicitly teach wherein: the trunked talkgroup definition is one of a plurality of trunked talkgroup definitions; and the LMR codeplug comprises the plurality of trunked talkgroup definitions.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Lee teaches wherein: the trunked talkgroup definition is one of a plurality of trunked talkgroup definitions; and the LMR codeplug comprises the plurality of trunked talkgroup definitions (fig. 1, pp0015, pp0020, for configuration of mobile communications device 106, information in the signal 122 may include one of a squelch code ID, a signal preamble code, a service set identifier (SSID) for IEEE 802.11 or WiFi wireless communications, token ID, frequency, channel or other information for communications, and pp0042). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Dutta with the teachings of Lee to achieve the goal of efficiently using configuration data to provide efficient, safe servicing, and support for two-way communications in a wireless communication system (Lee, pp0002, pp0006).
Claim(s) 4, 5, 12, and 13, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta et al. (US Publication No. 20210267008) in view of Lee et al. (US Publication No. 20080064332) and further in view of Waldron et al. (US Publication No. 20220050199).
As to claims 4 and 12, Dutta in view of Lee teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, fails to explicitly teach wherein the storing the LMR codeplug in the hub memory comprises retrieving the LMR codeplug from a cloud memory storage.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Waldron teaches wherein the storing the LMR codeplug in the hub memory comprises retrieving the LMR codeplug from a cloud memory storage (fig. 1, #105, pp0048, cloud-based platform sharing configuration settings to one or more electronic devices). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Dutta and Lee with the teachings of Waldron to achieve the goal of efficiently and accurately providing information to perform communication among electronic devices within close proximity in communication system (Waldron, pp0002).
As to claims 5 and 13, Dutta in view of Lee teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, fails to explicitly teach further comprising: providing a source LMR device comprising: a source LMR memory; a source LMR communication interface; and a source LMR processor; wherein the LMR codeplug is initially stored in the source LMR memory; and the storing the LMR codeplug in the hub memory comprises: establishing communication between the hub communication interface and the source LMR communication interface; and transmitting the LMR codeplug from the source LMR memory to the hub memory.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Waldron teaches further comprising: providing a source LMR device (fig. 1, pp0037, computing device #105, e.g. smartphone) comprising: a source LMR memory; a source LMR communication interface; and a source LMR processor (fig. 1, pp0037, computing device #105, e.g. smartphone, and fig. 7); wherein the LMR codeplug is initially stored in the source LMR memory (fig. 1, pp0037, computing device #105, e.g. smartphone, and fig. 7); and the storing the LMR codeplug in the hub memory comprises: establishing communication between the hub communication interface and the source LMR communication interface; and transmitting the LMR codeplug from the source LMR memory to the hub memory (fig. 1, pp0037, computing device #105, e.g. smartphone, fig. 7, and pp0048, sharing configuration settings to one or more electronic devices). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Dutta and Lee with the teachings of Waldron to achieve the goal of efficiently and accurately providing information to perform communication among electronic devices within close proximity in communication system (Waldron, pp0002).
Claim(s) 3 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dutta et al. (US Publication No. 20210267008) in view of Lee et al. (US Publication No. 20080064332) and further in view of Yang et al. (US Publication No. 20200367138).
As to claims 3 and 11, Dutta in view of Lee teaches the limitations of the independent claims as discussed above. However, fails to explicitly teach wherein: the hub device further comprises a user input; and the storing the LMR codeplug in the hub memory comprises entering the LMR codeplug via the user input.
In an analogous field of endeavor, Yang teaches wherein: the hub device further comprises a user input; and the storing the LMR codeplug in the hub memory comprises entering the LMR codeplug via the user input (fig. 1, control device e.g. mobile phone, pp0006, generate the configuration packet by pressing a single key or a key combination on the control device, and broadcasting the configuration packet to controlled devices). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the instant application to combine the teachings of Dutta and Lee with the teachings of Yang to achieve the goal of efficiently and reliably establishing communication and controlling other devices in a communication system (Yang, pp0003).
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 OMONIYI OBAYANJU whose telephone number is (571)270-5885. The examiner can normally be reached M-Thur 10:30-7pm.
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, ANTHONY S ADDY can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
/OMONIYI OBAYANJU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights