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 .
Introduction
This is a response to the applicant’s response filed on 11/13/2025. Claims 1-9 and 15-20 are currently presented in the instant application. Claims 10-14 are canceled.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on 08/31/2023 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Specification
The specification submitted on 08/31/2023 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-9 and 15-20 in the reply filed on 11/13/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 15 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naseef et al. (US Pub. No.: 2020/0244564, hereinafter, “Naseef”) in view of Abadie et al. (US Patent No.: 10,333,634, hereinafter, “Abadie”) and further in view of Hayashi (US Pub. No.: 2023/0079684).
Regarding claim 15, Naseef teaches a system comprising (see figure 1): the first unit (DUT 100), configured to be communicatively coupled to a second unit (tester 10)(see figure 1, tester device 10, DUT 100, [0040]); and a radio frequency signal generator, configured to generate a radio frequency signal to interfere with a communication session between the first unit and the second unit (see interference device 40, [0015, 0040, 0047]), it is clearly seen that testing the device under test may comprise testing an impact of interferences to the operation of the device under test and test device, and may test the device under test in a configuration when disturbances or interferences are applied.
It should be noticed that Naseef fails to teach an enclosure, configured to include a first unit; the first unit, configured to be communicatively coupled to a second unit; the second unit, configured to be located outside of the enclosure. However, Abadie teaches an enclosure (chamber 50), configured to include a first unit (DUT 100); the first unit, configured to be communicatively coupled to a second unit (signal source 11); the second unit, configured to be located outside of the enclosure (see figure 2, chamber 50, DUT 100, signal source 11, col.8, ln.15-53).
Making Integral
In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 968, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965) (A claim to a fluid transporting vehicle was rejected as obvious over a prior art reference which differed from the prior art in claiming a brake drum integral with a clamping means, whereas the brake disc and clamp of the prior art comprise several parts rigidly secured together as a single unit. The court affirmed the rejection holding, among other reasons, "that the use of a one piece construction instead of the structure disclosed in [the prior art] would be merely a matter of obvious engineering choice."); but see Schenck v. Nortron Corp., 713 F.2d 782, 218 USPQ 698 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (Claims were directed to a vibratory testing machine (a hard-bearing wheel balancer) comprising a holding structure, a base structure, and a supporting means which form "a single integral and gaplessly continuous piece." Nortron argued that the invention is just making integral what had been made in four bolted pieces. The court found this argument unpersuasive and held that the claims were patentable because the prior art perceived a need for mechanisms to dampen resonance, whereas the inventor eliminated the need for dampening via the one-piece gapless support structure, showing insight that was contrary to the understandings and expectations of the art.).
C. Making Separable
In re Dulberg, 289 F.2d 522, 523, 129 USPQ 348, 349 (CCPA 1961) (The claimed structure, a lipstick holder with a removable cap, was fully met by the prior art except that in the prior art the cap is "press fitted" and therefore not manually removable. The court held that "if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the end of [the prior art’s] holder to which the cap is applied, it would be obvious to make the cap removable for that purpose.").
PNG
media_image1.png
18
19
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Abadie into view of Naseef in order to provide the single signal comprising the in-band component and the interference component to the device under test. Hence, only a single antenna for emitting both, the in-band signal and the interference signal is required. Thus, the size of the test arrangement and furthermore the costs for such a test the system can be reduced as suggested by Abadie at col.6, ln.2-8.
Naseef and Abadie, in combination, fails to teach the second unit comprises one or more high-pass filters. However, Hayashi teaches the second unit comprises one or more high-pass filters (see figure 1, receiver applied to ETC system, HPF 4, [0030]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Hayashi into view of Naseef and Abadie in order to passes signals with a frequency higher than a specific cutoff frequency and attenuates signals with frequencies lower than the cutoff.
Regarding claim 19, Naseef further teaches the first unit and the second unit are communicatively coupled to a monitor that provides data associated with the communication session (see figure 1, interference controller 30, wireless coupled, [0046, 0048]).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naseef et al. (US Pub. No.: 2020/0244564, hereinafter, “Naseef”) in view of Abadie et al. (US Patent No.: 10,333,634, hereinafter, “Abadie”) and further in view of Hayashi (US Pub. No.: 2023/0079684) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Terrier (US Pub. No.: 2013/0002407).
Regarding claim 16, Naseef, Abadie and Hayashi, in combination, fails to teach the first unit is an onboard unit, and wherein the second unit is a roadside unit. However, Terrier teaches the first unit is an onboard unit, and wherein the second unit is a roadside unit (see figure 1, vehicle 22, transponder 20, reader 17, [0023-0025]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Terrier into view of Naseef, Abadie and Hayashi in order to communication in short range.
Regarding claim 17, Hayashi further teaches the roadside unit is a Dedicated Short- Range Communications (DSRC) transceiver (see col.1, ln.15-17).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Naseef et al. (US Pub. No.: 2020/0244564, hereinafter, “Naseef”) in view of Abadie et al. (US Patent No.: 10,333,634, hereinafter, “Abadie”) and further in view of Hayashi (US Pub. No.: 2023/0079684) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Linkola et al. (US Pub. No.: 2023/0283387, hereinafter, “Linkola”).
Regarding claim 18, Naseef, Abadie and Hayashi, in combination, fails to teach the enclosure comprises a shielded room with absorbing material on internal reflective surfaces, the enclosure providing an isolated electromagnetic compatibility test facility that simulates open field testing. However, Linkola teaches the enclosure comprises a shielded room with absorbing material on internal reflective surfaces, the enclosure providing an isolated electromagnetic compatibility test facility that simulates open field testing (see figure 4, chamber 40, [0052], examiner take official noticed that the enclosure comprises a shielded room with absorbing material on internal reflective surfaces is well known in the art).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Linkola into view of Naseef, Abadie and Hayashi in order to provide the software-based to test the devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
Claim 20 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 1, the prior art made of record fails to clearly teach or fairly suggest the feature of the detecting an interrupt of the communication session at a frequency point associated with the RF signal; determining that the interrupt is caused by a failure of uplink data transmission in the communication session; and adjusting a position of the roadside unit to cause the communication session to be reestablished at the frequency point associated with the RF signal, as specified in the claim 1, and further limitations of their respective dependent claims 2-9.
Regarding claim 20, the prior art made of record fails to clearly teach or fairly suggest the feature of the first unit is communicatively coupled to a first antenna, wherein the second unit is communicatively coupled to a second antenna, wherein the first antenna and the second antenna are configured to be located in the enclosure, wherein the first unit is configured to be located inside the enclosure, wherein the second unit is configured to be located outside of the enclosure, wherein the first unit comprises a third antenna configured inside the first unit, and wherein the monitor is communicatively coupled to a fourth antenna configured to be located inside the enclosure between the second antenna and the third antenna.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan A. Pham whose telephone number is (571) 272-8097, the fax number is (571) 273-8097 and the email is tuan.pham01@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 PM. 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached on (571) 272-7855. 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.
/TUAN PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649