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 have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that ‘…That is, after a review of each reference, Applicant submits that there is no teaching or suggestion of, inter alia,, the movement action mechanism further enabling the wireless consumer-electronic device to rotate about a vertical axis at a rotational angle while levitating, and remain at said rotational angle…’ Examiner disagrees. First, it is unclear what Applicant is attempting to claim. Para. 60 of the published specification states that the device is set to a specific rotational angle and not that it rotates about a vertical axis at a rotational angle. In other words, para. 60 suggests the rotational angle is referring to the yaw angle to which it rotates ‘to’, but not ‘at’ a rotational angle. Second, Fleureau discloses, in para. 5-9, yaw speed turning around a vertical axis in a counter-clockwise or clockwise direction at a pitch angle set to 0 or any other number(e.g. a rotational angle). Further, Puskarich discloses levitated item can be maintained in a desired location and can be controlled to move by being preprogrammed in the control system and rotated (See col. 2, lines 25-35; col. 2, line 43; rotation) In addition, Puskarich discloses controlling orientation about a vertical axis (a rotational angle) and rotation about a vertical axis wherein pitch could be zero. (See col. 7, lines 20-24; col. 10, lines 18-23) In other words, both references disclose wherein the device is controlled to move about a vertical axis both to a rotational angle and at a pitch (wherein the pitch could be zero). As outlined above, it is unclear what Applicant is attempting to claim and the claims need clarification. However, the prior art of record does indeed teach these limitations. Please rereview the references and your specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-20 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.
Regarding claims 1-14, claim 1 recites ‘…wherein the movement action mechanism further enabling the wireless consumer-electronic device to rotate about a vertical axis at a rotational angle while levitating and remaining at said rotational angle…’ It is unclear what Applicant is attempting to claim. Para. 60 of the published specification states that the device is set to a specific rotational angle and not that it rotates about a vertical axis at a rotational angle. In other words, para. 60 suggests the rotational angle is referring to the yaw angle to which it rotates ‘to’, but not ‘at’ a rotational angle. Claims 2-14 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 1 and are rejected for similar reasons. Review your claims and specification.
Regarding claims 15-20, claim 15 recites ‘…wherein the movement action mechanism further enabling the wireless consumer-electronic device to rotate about a vertical axis at a rotational angle while levitating and remaining at said rotational angle…’ It is unclear what Applicant is attempting to claim. Para. 60 of the published specification states that the device is set to a specific rotational angle and not that it rotates about a vertical axis at a rotational angle. In other words, para. 60 suggests the rotational angle is referring to the yaw angle to which it rotates ‘to’, but not ‘at’ a rotational angle. Claims 16-20 do not cure the deficiencies of claim 15 and are rejected for similar reasons. Review your claims and specification.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzner (2021/0094686), and further in view of Mohammed (2018/0220307) and further in view of Fleureau (2015/0370258).
Regarding claim 1, Metzner discloses a wireless consumer-electronic device comprising: (See Metzner fig. 17a, 1c; device which is wireless that is a consumer’s house and is electronic)
an outer housing; (See Metzner para. 98, 99, fig. 3a; outer housing having four sides and a shape; para. 107; frame)
electronic circuitry arranged within the outer housing for performing one or more electronic functions; (See Metzner fig. 3a, para. 104; camera, processor, memory, battery, transceiver, circuitry or other sensors (e.g. electronic circuitry))
a power source arranged within the outer housing, the power source and (See Metzner fig. 3a, para. 104; battery or other power source (e.g. a power source))
a movement action mechanism arranged within the outer housing, the movement action mechanism configured to enable the wireless consumer-electronic device to levitate. (See Metzner fig. 3b, para. 108; propulsive motors with propellers (e.g. movement action mechanism) which lift the device (e.g. levitate); see also fig. 1c; device levitating above base)
Metzner does not explicitly disclose wherein the device is configured to be charged wirelessly. However, Mohammed does disclose wherein the device is configured to be charged wirelessly. (See Mohammed para. 52; inductive wireless charging) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Metzner to include the teaching of wherein the device is configured to be charged wirelessly of Mohammed with the motivation being to reduce the wear and tear on physical connectors and further to reduce the risk of electrical hazards such as shocks.
Metzner in view of Mohammed does not explicitly disclose wherein the movement action mechanism further enabling the wireless consumer-electronic device to rotate about a vertical axis at a rotational angle while levitating and remaining at said rotational angle. However, Fleureau does disclose wherein the movement action mechanism further enabling the wireless consumer-electronic device to rotate about a vertical axis at a rotational angle while levitating and remaining at said rotational angle. (See Fleureau para. 5-9; yaw speed turning around a vertical axis in a counter-clockwise or clockwise direction at a pitch angle set to 0 or any other number(e.g. a rotational angle); see also 112 rejection above) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Metzner in view of Mohammed to include the teaching of wherein the movement action mechanism further enabling the wireless consumer-electronic device to rotate about a vertical axis at a rotational angle while levitating and remaining at said rotational angle of Fleureau with the motivation being to allow for easier flight navigation and the ability to avoid objects and further to make a drone more nimble and quicker and further to allow for the pointing of particular sensors towards an object which allows for less sensors and more capability.
Regarding claim 2, Metzner in view of Mohammed in view of Fleureau discloses the wireless consumer-electronic device of claim 1, wherein the electronic circuitry includes Wi-Fi communication capabilities. (See Metzner fig. 2; transceiver; para. 88 operating on any proprietary standard; para. 90; WiFi)
Regarding claim 4, Metzner in view of Mohammed in view of Fleureau discloses the wireless consumer-electronic device of claim 1, wherein the movement action mechanism is further configured to enable the wireless consumer-electronic device to levitated position. (See Metzner fig. 17a, para. 230; autonomous vehicle travels throughout apartment along a path while in flight (e.g. levitating); fig. 1D)
Metzner does not explicitly disclose wherein the device rotates along its path. However, Fleureau does disclose wherein the device rotates along its path. (See Fleureau para. 5-9; drone controlled via 4 parameters including yaw (rotation) or roll (rotation) or pitch (rotation) at the same time; elevation is levitating; para. 10; all parameters are continuously adapted at the same time (e.g. while levitating)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Metzner in view of Mohammed to include the teaching of wherein the device rotates along its path of Fleureau with the motivation being to allow for easier flight navigation and the ability to avoid objects and further to make a drone more nimble and quicker and further to allow for the pointing of particular sensors towards an object which allows for less sensors and more capability.
Regarding claim 5, Metzner in view of Mohammed in view of Fleureau discloses the wireless consumer-electronic device of claim 4. Metzner does not explicitly disclose wherein the movement action mechanism is configured to operate in conjunction with a base station device for levitating the wireless consumer-electronic device. However, Mohammed does disclose wherein the movement action mechanism is configured to operate in conjunction with a base station device for levitating the wireless consumer-electronic device. (See Mohammed para. 19; drone sent via computer system control that identifies areas and deploys; fig. 1-2; wireless network nodes connected to computer system control sends signals to unmanned vehicle wirelessly for deployment; para. 57; wireless network nodes and computer system identify and deploy drones) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Metzner to include the teaching of wherein the movement action mechanism is configured to operate in conjunction with a base station device for levitating the wireless consumer-electronic device of Mohammed with the motivation being to quickly respond to issues and further to allow for automation of drone operation and further to increase safety and security and further to increase network coverage without delay.
Metzner does not explicitly disclose wherein the device rotates along its path. However, Fleureau does disclose wherein the device rotates along its path. (See Fleureau para. 5-9; drone controlled via 4 parameters including yaw (rotation) or roll (rotation) or pitch (rotation) at the same time; elevation is levitating; para. 10; all parameters are continuously adapted at the same time (e.g. while levitating)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Metzner in view of Mohammed to include the teaching of wherein the device rotates along its path of Fleureau with the motivation being to allow for easier flight navigation and the ability to avoid objects and further to make a drone more nimble and quicker and further to allow for the pointing of particular sensors towards an object which allows for less sensors and more capability.
Regarding claim 6, Metzner in view of Mohammed in view of Fleureau discloses the wireless consumer-electronic device of claim 5. Metzner does not explicitly disclose further comprising one or more antennas and one or more radios, wherein the movement action mechanism and base station device are configured to position the wireless consumer-electronic device in order to strategically steer the one or more antennas for increasing the strength of wireless communication signals, for increasing wireless coverage, and/or for reducing signal interference. However, Mohammed does disclose further comprising one or more antennas and one or more radios, wherein the movement action mechanism and base station device are configured to position the wireless consumer-electronic device in order to strategically steer the one or more antennas for increasing the strength of wireless communication signals, for increasing wireless coverage, and/or for reducing signal interference. (See Mohammed para. 18; positioning or repositioning the body of the drone when an antenna is fixed; para. 19; drone deployed to augment or provide wireless capacity (e.g. increase coverage)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Metzner to include the teaching of further comprising one or more antennas and one or more radios, wherein the movement action mechanism and base station device are configured to position the wireless consumer-electronic device in order to strategically steer the one or more antennas for increasing the strength of wireless communication signals, for increasing wireless coverage, and/or for reducing signal interference of Mohammed with the motivation being to extend wireless coverage to weak signal areas (See Mohammed para. 17) and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and further to temporarily extend network coverage to collect data for remote sensors and further to maximize signal strength and network throughput and further to quickly respond to emergency disasters.
Regarding claim 7, Metzner in view of Mohammed in view of Fleureau discloses the wireless consumer-electronic device of claim 1, wherein the power source comprises a rechargeable battery unit and is configured to operate in conjunction with a base station device for charging the rechargeable battery unit. (See Mohammed para. 30, 37, 127; charging by receiving electrical power a battery (e.g. recharging)) The motivation being to reduce the wear and tear on physical connectors and further to reduce the risk of electrical hazards such as shocks.
Regarding claim 8, Metzner in view of Mohammed in view of Fleureau discloses the wireless consumer-electronic device of claim 7. Metzner does not explicitly disclose wherein magnetic induction is used for charging the battery. However, Mohammed does disclose wherein magnetic induction is used for charging the battery. (See Mohammed para. 52; inductive wireless charging) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Metzner to include the teaching of wherein magnetic induction is used for charging the battery of Mohammed with the motivation being to reduce the wear and tear on physical connectors and further to reduce the risk of electrical hazards such as shocks and further enhance ability to be autonomous.
Regarding claim 9, Metzner in view of Mohammed in view of Fleureau discloses the wireless consumer-electronic device of claim 1, wherein the movement action mechanism is configured to move the wireless consumer-electronic device in vertical and horizontal directions to enable self-positioning of the wireless consumer-electronic device within an area. (See Metzner fig. 1c, 12b; device vertically rising using propellers and motors; fig. 1d, 17a; moving horizontally to position itself using propellers and motors; see also 11d; vertically falling; see also associated paragraphs describing these figures)
Regarding claim 10, Metzner in view of Mohammed in view of Fleureau discloses the wireless consumer-electronic device of claim 9. Metzner does not explicitly disclose wherein the electronic circuitry includes wireless communication capabilities, and wherein the movement action mechanism is configured to move the wireless consumer-electronic device to a location and/or orientation for increasing the strength or coverage of wireless communication signals and/or for reducing wireless communication interference. However, Mohammed does disclose wherein the electronic circuitry includes wireless communication capabilities, and wherein the movement action mechanism is configured to move the wireless consumer-electronic device to a location and/or orientation for increasing the strength or coverage of wireless communication signals and/or for reducing wireless communication interference. (See Mohammed para. 18; positioning or repositioning the body of the drone when an antenna is fixed; para. 19; drone deployed to augment or provide wireless capacity (e.g. increase coverage)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Metzner to include the teaching of wherein the electronic circuitry includes wireless communication capabilities, and wherein the movement action mechanism is configured to move the wireless consumer-electronic device to a location and/or orientation for increasing the strength or coverage of wireless communication signals and/or for reducing wireless communication interference of Mohammed with the motivation being to extend wireless coverage to weak signal areas (See Mohammed para. 17) and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and further to temporarily extend network coverage to collect data for remote sensors and further to maximize signal strength and network throughput and further to quickly respond to emergency disasters.
Regarding claim 12, Metzner in view of Mohammed in view of Fleureau discloses the wireless consumer-electronic device of claim 9. Metzner discloses wherein self- positioning the wireless consumer-electronic device includes landing the wireless consumer- electronic device on a base station device selected from one or more base station devices to enable the power source to be recharged. (See Metzner para. 37; charging the autonomous vehicle at base; para. 36; directing aerial vehicle to return to base component; fig. 11d, para. 178; device returns to base (e.g. landing))
Metzner does not explicitly disclose wherein the device is configured to be charged wirelessly. However, Mohammed does disclose wherein the device is configured to be charged wirelessly. (See Mohammed para. 52; inductive wireless charging) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Metzner to include the teaching of wherein the device is configured to be charged wirelessly of Mohammed with the motivation being to reduce the wear and tear on physical connectors and further to reduce the risk of electrical hazards such as shocks.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzner (2021/0094686), and further in view of Mohammed (2018/0220307) and further in view of Fleureau (2015/0370258) and further in view of Pochop (2012/0129559).
Regarding claim 3, Metzner in view of Mohammed in view of Fleureau discloses the wireless consumer-electronic device of claim 2.
Metzner discloses using WiFi. (See Metzner para. 90)
Metzner does not explicitly disclose wherein the wireless consumer-electronic device is an Access Point (AP) device, a wireless pod device, a wireless leaf device, or a wireless extender and is configured to extend the range of wireless accessibility by communicating wireless signals intermediately between a user device and a wireless network device over backhaul and fronthaul links. However, Mohammed does disclose wherein the wireless consumer-electronic device is an Access Point (AP) device, a wireless pod device, a wireless leaf device, or a wireless extender and is configured to extend the range of wireless accessibility by communicating wireless signals intermediately between a user device and a wireless network device over backhaul and fronthaul links. (See Mohammed para. 52, fig. 6; drone or unmanned vehicle is equipped with wireless base station (e.g. access point) which communicates with wireless network node of a service provider through a link (e.g. backhaul) and a UE (e.g. fronthaul); fig. 6; wireless network nodes (625), which are connected to unmanned vehicles (e.g. fronthaul) are connected to network (e.g. backhaul)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Metzner to include the teaching of wherein the wireless consumer-electronic device is an Access Point (AP) device, a wireless pod device, a wireless leaf device, or a wireless extender and is configured to extend the range of wireless accessibility by communicating wireless signals intermediately between a user device and a wireless network device over backhaul and fronthaul links of Mohammed with the motivation being to extend wireless coverage to weak signal areas (See Mohammed para. 17) and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and further to temporarily extend network coverage to collect data for remote sensors.
Metzner in view of Mohammed does not explicitly disclose wherein the network device has routing capability. However, Pochop does disclose wherein the network device has routing capability. (See Pochop para. 1; wireless network device is a wireless router) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Metzner in view of Mohammed to include the teaching of wherein the network device has routing capability of Pochop with the motivation being to for security reasons (firewall protection or other security features) and further to allow for connection between different networks (Internet and home network for example) and further to utilize bandwidth more efficiently by only forwarding to devices when necessary and further to efficiently direct traffic and choose most efficient route and further to reduce network traffic by creating collision and broadcast domains and further to utilize dynamic routing algorithms to determine the best path.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzner (2021/0094686), and further in view of Mohammed (2018/0220307) and further in view of Fleureau (2015/0370258) and further in view of Kunzi (2018/0196435).
Regarding claim 11, Metzner in view of Mohammed in view of Fleureau discloses the wireless consumer-electronic device of claim 9. Metzner discloses using collision avoidance. Metzner does not explicitly disclose further comprising one or more sensors for sensing obstacles while the movement action mechanism is moving the wireless consumer-electronic device, wherein the electronic circuitry includes navigation functionality to help the movement action mechanism avoid the sensed obstacles. However, Kunzi does disclose further comprising one or more sensors for sensing obstacles while the movement action mechanism is moving the wireless consumer-electronic device, wherein the electronic circuitry includes navigation functionality to help the movement action mechanism avoid the sensed obstacles. (See Kunzi para. 57; using sensors to find obstacles and using flight controls to avoid sensed obstacles; para. 65; flight controls using movement action mechanisms) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Metzner to include the teaching of wherein the electronic circuitry includes navigation functionality to help the movement action mechanism avoid the sensed obstacles of Kunzi with the motivation being to account for unexpected objects along a path and further to reduce damage to the drone and further to prevent injury to people and/or animals and further to reduce or prevent property damage caused by a collision.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzner (2021/0094686), and further in view of Mohammed (2018/0220307) and further in view of Fleureau (2015/0370258) and further in view of Uemura (2019/0075231).
Regarding claim 14, Metzner in view of Mohammed in view of Fleureau discloses the wireless consumer-electronic device of claim 1. Metzner discloses led lights on the base to indicate battery level of the drone. Metzner does not explicitly disclose further comprising one or more audio and/or visual output devices configured to indicate when a power level of the power source is low, when the strength of a wireless link is low, and/or when an Internet connection is down. However, Uemura does disclose further comprising one or more audio and/or visual output devices configured to indicate when a power level of the power source is low, when the strength of a wireless link is low, and/or when an Internet connection is down. (See Uemura fig. 2; light emission unit; fig. 5a-5c; led’s on drone; para. 70; LED may denote remaining battery level of the drone (e.g. indicating when low)) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Metzner to include the teaching of further comprising one or more audio and/or visual output devices configured to indicate when a power level of the power source is low, when the strength of a wireless link is low, and/or when an Internet connection is down of Uemura with the motivation being to know the level without having to have another device tell the end user and further to allow for easy identification of the drone to avoid and at the same time know how much battery is left and further to know when if applicable to replace the battery and further to detect battery health and further to allow for cheaper base stations.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzner (2021/0094686), and further in view of Mohammed (2018/0220307) and further in view of Fleureau (2015/0370258) and further in view of DaytonAudio (DaytonAudio “Exciters & Tactile Transducers 101”; https://doc.soundimports.nl/pdf/brands/Dayton%20Audio/Dayton%20Audio%20tactile%20transducers%20user%20guide./Dayton%20Audio%20tactile%20transducers%20user%20guide.pdf ; 2019).
Regarding claim 13, Metzner in view of Mohammed in view of Fleureau discloses the wireless consumer-electronic device of claim 1. Metzner in view of Mohammed do not explicitly disclose comprising a speaker driver arranged, wherein, when the wireless consumer- electronic device is positioned on an external object having a flat surface, the speaker driver is configured to vibrate the external object to generate sound. However, DaytonAudio does disclose a speaker driver arranged, wherein, when the wireless consumer- electronic device is positioned on an external object having a flat surface, the speaker driver is configured to vibrate the external object to generate sound. (See DaytonAudio pg. 2; excitor which causes a flat surface to vibrate and make sound) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Metzner in view of Mohammed to include the teaching of comprising a speaker driver arranged, wherein, when the wireless consumer- electronic device is positioned on an external object having a flat surface, the speaker driver is configured to vibrate the external object to generate sound of DaytonAudio with the motivation being to save weight (no required cone and other parts) and further to increase sound quality for the size and further to allow for additional functionality and further to utilize as a speaker for other audio while charging and further to allow for sound while saving weight and further due to size constraints.
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 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzner (2021/0094686), and further in view of Mohammed (2018/0220307) and further in view of Fleureau (2015/0370258).
Regarding claim 15, Metzner discloses a system comprising:
one or more base station devices; and (See Metzner fig. 1c; part 150)
one or more wireless consumer-electronic devices, wherein each wireless consumer- electronic device includes: (See Metzner fig. 17a, 1c; device which is wireless that is a consumer’s house and is electronic)
an outer housing, (See Metzner para. 98, 99, fig. 3a; outer housing having four sides and a shape; para. 107; frame)
electronic circuitry arranged within the outer housing for performing one or more electronic functions, (See Metzner fig. 3a, para. 104; camera, processor, memory, battery, transceiver, circuitry or other sensors (e.g. electronic circuitry))
a power source arranged within the outer housing, the power source by a nearby base station device of the one or more base station devices, and (See Metzner fig. 3a, para. 104; battery or other power source (e.g. a power source)) (See Mohammed para. 30, 37, 127; charging by receiving electrical power a battery (e.g. recharging) at base)
a movement action mechanism arranged within the outer housing, the movement action mechanism and nearby base station device configured to enable the wireless consumer-electronic device to levitate. (See Metzner fig. 3b, para. 108; propulsive motors with propellers (e.g. movement action mechanism) which lift the device (e.g. levitate); see also fig. 1c; device levitating above base)
Metzner does not explicitly disclose wherein the device is configured to be charged wirelessly. However, Mohammed does disclose wherein the device is configured to be charged wirelessly. (See Mohammed para. 52; inductive wireless charging) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Metzner to include the teaching of wherein the device is configured to be charged wirelessly of Mohammed with the motivation being to reduce the wear and tear on physical connectors and further to reduce the risk of electrical hazards such as shocks.
Metzner in view of Mohammed does not explicitly disclose wherein the movement action mechanism further enabling the wireless consumer-electronic device to rotate about a vertical axis at a rotational angle while levitating and remaining at said rotational angle. However, Fleureau does disclose wherein the movement action mechanism further enabling the wireless consumer-electronic device to rotate about a vertical axis at a rotational angle while levitating and remaining at said rotational angle. (See Fleureau para. 5-9; yaw speed turning around a vertical axis in a counter-clockwise or clockwise direction at a pitch angle set to 0 or any other number(e.g. a rotational angle); see also 112 rejection above) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Metzner in view of Mohammed to include the teaching of wherein the movement action mechanism further enabling the wireless consumer-electronic device to rotate about a vertical axis at a rotational angle while levitating and remaining at said rotational angle of Fleureau with the motivation being to allow for easier flight navigation and the ability to avoid objects and further to make a drone more nimble and quicker and further to allow for the pointing of particular sensors towards an object which allows for less sensors and more capability.
Claims 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzner (2021/0094686), and further in view of Mohammed (2018/0220307) and further in view of Fleureau (2015/0370258) and further in view of Pochop (2012/0129559).
Regarding claim 16, Metzner in view of Mohammed in view of Fleureau discloses the system of claim 15. Metzner do not explicitly disclose further comprising a Wi-Fi device configured to establish a Wi-Fi network, wherein the one or more wireless consumer-electronic devices include a plurality of Wi-Fi Access Point (AP) devices, and wherein the Wi-Fi device is configured to determine the status of the Wi-Fi network to calculate locations of the Wi-Fi AP devices to increase Wi-Fi signal strength and/or reduce Wi-Fi signal interference. However, Mohammed does disclose comprising a Wi-Fi device configured to establish a Wi-Fi network, wherein the one or more wireless consumer-electronic devices include a plurality of Wi-Fi Access Point (AP) devices, and wherein the Wi-Fi device is configured to determine the status of the Wi-Fi network to calculate locations of the Wi-Fi AP devices to increase Wi-Fi signal strength and/or reduce Wi-Fi signal interference. (See Mohammed fig. 2; Wireless network nodes and computing system; para. 19; identifying areas to provide wireless capacity; para. 18; unmanned vehicles (e.g. plurality) positioned using WiFi technology) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Metzner to include the teaching of comprising a Wi-Fi device configured to establish a Wi-Fi network, wherein the one or more wireless consumer-electronic devices include a plurality of Wi-Fi Access Point (AP) devices, and wherein the Wi-Fi device is configured to determine the status of the Wi-Fi network to calculate locations of the Wi-Fi AP devices to increase Wi-Fi signal strength and/or reduce Wi-Fi signal interference of Mohammed with the motivation being to extend wireless coverage to weak signal areas (See Mohammed para. 17) and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and further to temporarily extend network coverage to collect data for remote sensors.
Metzner in view of Mohammed does not explicitly disclose wherein the network device has routing capability. However, Pochop does disclose wherein the network device has routing capability. (See Pochop para. 1; wireless network device is a wireless router) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Metzner in view of Mohammed to include the teaching of wherein the network device has routing capability of Pochop with the motivation being to for security reasons (firewall protection or other security features) and further to allow for connection between different networks (Internet and home network for example) and further to utilize bandwidth more efficiently by only forwarding to devices when necessary and further to efficiently direct traffic and choose most efficient route and further to reduce network traffic by creating collision and broadcast domains and further to utilize dynamic routing algorithms to determine the best path.
Regarding claim 17, Metzner in view of Mohammed in view of Fleureau in view of Pochop discloses the system of claim 16, wherein the movement action mechanism of each Wi-Fi AP device is configured to automatically position the respective Wi-Fi AP device to one of the calculated locations. (See Mohammed para. 19; drone sent via computer system control that identifies areas and deploys; fig. 1-2; wireless network nodes connected to computer system control sends signals to unmanned vehicle wirelessly for deployment; para. 57; wireless network nodes and computer system identify and deploy drones; drones are unmanned (e.g. automatic)) The motivation being to extend wireless coverage to weak signal areas (See Mohammed para. 17) and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and further to temporarily extend network coverage to collect data and further to quickly respond to network issues caused by emergencies.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Metzner (2021/0094686), and further in view of Mohammed (2018/0220307) and further in view of Fleureau (2015/0370258) and further in view of Pochop (2012/0129559) and further in view of Belur Ramachandra (2023/0232282).
Regarding claim 18, Metzner in view of Mohammed in view of Fleureau in view of Pochop discloses the system of claim 16,
Mohammed discloses a wireless mesh. Metzner in view of Mohammed in view of Fleureau in view of Pochop do not explicitly disclose wherein one or more of the wireless nodes acts as an intermediate device between the network device and one or more other wireless nodes devices to extend the reach of the network. However, Belur Ramachandra does disclose wherein one or more of the wireless nodes acts as an intermediate device between the network device and one or more other wireless nodes devices to extend the reach of the network. (See Belur Ramachandra fig. 1; Mesh STA 116 extends network from Mesh STA 114 connected to wired network to Mesh STA 122) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Metzner in view of Mohammed in view of Fleureau in view of Pochop to include the teaching of wherein one or more of the wireless nodes acts as an intermediate device between the network device and one or more other wireless nodes devices to extend the reach of the network of Belur Ramachandra with the motivation being to extend wireless coverage even further to weak signal areas and further to allow for flexibility in network operation and further to provide a more robust network.
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.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oganov (WO2018/163037), and further in view of Puskarich (9,979,259).
Regarding claim 15, Oganov discloses a system comprising:
one or more base station devices; and (See Oganov fig. 1, pg. 2; part 1, base unit (e.g. base station device))
one or more wireless consumer-electronic devices, wherein each wireless consumer- electronic device includes: (See Oganov fig. 1, pg. 2; part 5, levitating spherical compartment; pg. 6; Wifi (e.g. wireless))
an outer housing, (See Oganov fig. 1, pg. 2; part 5, levitating spherical compartment (having an exterior (e.g. housing)))
electronic circuitry arranged within the outer housing for performing one or more electronic functions, (See Oganov pg. 5 PCB, with various electronic parts; pg. 6; wifi, sensors, processor, etc. (e.g. electronic circuitry))
a power source arranged within the outer housing, the power source configured to be charged wirelessly by a nearby base station device of the one or more base station devices, and (See Oganov fig. 1, pg. 5; battery, 8, (e.g. a power source) which is within the compartment (e.g. outer housing) and the battery is charged wirelessly by inductive flat coil in both base, 9, and device, 10)
a movement action mechanism arranged within the outer housing, the movement action mechanism and nearby base station device configured to enable the wireless consumer-electronic device to levitate. (See Oganov fig. 1, 6 magnet and parts of base station enable the device to levitate)
Oganov does not explicitly disclose wherein the movement action mechanism further enabling the wireless consumer-electronic device to rotate about a vertical axis at a rotational angle while levitating and remaining at said rotational angle. However, Puskarich does disclose wherein the movement action mechanism further enabling the wireless consumer-electronic device to rotate about a vertical axis at a rotational angle while levitating and remaining at said rotational angle. (See Puskarich col. 2, lines 25-35; levitated item can be maintained in a desired location and can be controlled to move by being preprogrammed in the control system; col. 2, line 43; rotation; col. 7, lines 20-24; control orientation about a vertical axis (a rotational angle); additionally/alternatively; col. 10, lines 18-23; rotation about vertical axis; pitch could be zero; see also 112 rejection above) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Oganov to include the teaching of wherein the movement action mechanism further enabling the wireless consumer-electronic device to rotate about a vertical axis at a rotational angle while levitating and remaining at said rotational angle of Puskarich with the motivation being to allow for positioning of a device which may allow for increased functionality such as pointing a sensor or antenna in a certain direction and further for pleasing visual affect and further to control a device preventing uncontrolled spinning which may not be desirable.
Regarding claim 19, Oganov in view of Puskarich discloses the system of claim 15, wherein each base station device includes:
one or more magnets and/or electromagnets for enabling a nearby wireless consumer- electronic device to levitate; and (See Oganov fig. 1, pg. 4; 2, 3, magnets which enable levitation)
one or more charging coils for wirelessly charging the nearby wireless consumer- electronic device; (See Oganov fig. 1, pg. 5; 9 charging coil)
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oganov (WO2018/163037), and further in view of Puskarich (9,979,259) and further in view of Lysejko (2016/0380353).
Regarding claim 20, Oganov in view of Puskarich discloses the system of claim 19. Oganov in view of Puskarich do not explicitly disclose wherein nearby wireless consumer-electronic device includes a directional antenna, and wherein the predetermined rotational angle is based on steering the directional antenna in a direction to increase signal strength and/or reduce signal interference. However, Lysejko does disclose wherein nearby wireless consumer-electronic device includes a directional antenna, and wherein the predetermined rotational angle is based on steering the directional antenna in a direction to increase signal strength and/or reduce signal interference. (See Lysejko para. 10; directional antenna is rotated to reduce interference and maximize wireless signal) Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the apparatus of Oganov in view of Puskarich to include the teaching of wherein nearby wireless consumer-electronic device includes a directional antenna, and wherein the predetermined rotational angle is based on steering the directional antenna in a direction to increase signal strength and/or reduce signal interference of Lysejko with the motivation being to reduce interference and further to improve throughput and further to rapidly deploy and configure automatically (See Lysejko para. 10) and further to allow for dynamic wireless conditions which may require continuous adjustment.
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 STEPHEN J CLAWSON whose telephone number is (571)270-7498. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-5:00 pm est.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at (571) 272-3155. 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.
/Stephen J Clawson/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461