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 newly amended claims 1 and 12 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 concerning the absence of a sealed feedthrough power switch and the specific panel sealing arrangement in Williams and Neenan are noted. However, these arguments are largely moot in view of the newly introduced Sharrah reference. As shown in the rejection below, Sharrah explicitly discloses a sealed subframe with a user-operable switch assembly mounted on the exterior, wherein the switch actuator extends into the sealed compartment through a fluid-impermeable seal (V-ring). This reference directly addresses newly added limitations related to the power switch structure and sealing configuration.
Accordingly, the created combination of Williams, Neenan, and Sharrah as set below, fully teaches all limitations of amended claim 1, including the sealed compartment with an exterior-mounted power switch extending into the compartment without disrupting the seal.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 7, 9 and 13-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams (US 2019/0044217) in view Neenan et al (US 11,329,363) and further in view of Sharrah (US 2021/0163456).
Regarding claim 1 (as amended): Williams teaches a communication case adapted for exposure to biological material (0046- the case can be waterproof, dustproof, etc.). The communication case comprises:
A case, the case comprising a lid and a base: Williams discloses case 12 including base 42 and lid 44 connectable to base 42 (0045; Figs. 1–2). Lid 44 is movable between open and closed positions, providing access to internal components.
The case includes two compartments within an interior volume… configured to be opened to provide access to a first compartment… in the lid: Williams teaches base cavity 15a and lid cavity 15b (0046; Fig. 6), components divided between lid and base forming separate compartments. Opening the lid provides access to the lid cavity (first compartment).
A panel positioned to separate a sealed compartment… in the base from the first compartment … panel creates a seal… from exterior and from the first compartment: Williams teaches gaskets (gasket 48) and foam layers to protect and isolate components (0047, 71–73; Fig. 5).
Neenan teaches an IP67-compliant case with an optional barrier separating antennas in the lid from other components in the base (Abstract; 0010).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Neenan’s sealant teachings with Williams existing sealed case including the use of foam and gaskets to enclose specific compartments and equipment inside the case, in order to provide Williams’ case with the ability to protect its components from the elements while in use, i.e., open.
Williams further teaches a modem positioned within an interior of the sealed compartment: Williams teaches router device 14 with built-in modem located inside the case interior (0049–0051).
A Wi-Fi transceiver positioned within the interior of the sealed compartment: Williams teaches Wi-Fi antennas 34 and Wi-Fi capability within the case (0054–0056).
A power switch disposed on an exterior surface of the case and extending into the sealed compartment: Williams teaches a power switch 22 coupled to the modem and operable without opening the case (0050–0051), but does not disclose the switch being disposed on an exterior surface and extending through a sealed panel into the sealed compartment.
Sharrah teaches a portable device (flashlight) with a sealed internal subframe (sealed compartment) and a switch assembly including a wheel accessible on the exterior surface, a stem extending into the sealed compartment through a sealed opening, and a V-ring seal providing a fluid-impermeable interface (0033–0037). The switch actuator penetrates the sealed wall and is coupled to internal electronics.
Williams further teaches the power switch is coupled to the modem, such that a user may operate the power switch to initiate a first wireless communication channel… and a second communication channel… without accessing the interior of the sealed compartment and without disrupting the seal: Williams teaches initiating wireless channels between the modem and a cellular node and between the Wi-Fi transceiver and an external user device without opening the case (0054-0056). Sharrah teaches operating internal electronics from the exterior without breaching the seal (0040-0043).
Williams further teaches relaying data packets between cellular network and Wi-Fi devices (0054–0056).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Williams’s communication case (as enhanced with Neenan’s sealing teachings) to include Sharrah’s sealed, exterior-mounted, feedthrough power switch mechanism. Williams already teaches a power switch coupled to a modem inside a sealed case, but not the specific sealed feedthrough arrangement. Sharrah teaches a practical, known solution for mounting a user-operable actuator on the exterior of an enclosure, extending into a sealed compartment through a sealed opening, to allow operation of internal electronics without compromising the seal. Combining Sharrah’s feedthrough switch with Williams’s sealed communication case results in enabling user control of the modem/Wi-Fi transceiver while maintaining environmental protection, a common goal in rugged portable electronics.
Regarding claims 2 and 18, Williams as modified by Neenan teaches the panel hermetically seals the sealed compartment from the exterior of the case and from the first compartment (see Neenan abstract).
Examiner’s note- figure 16 and 0088 disclose case 12 can go inside case 90, case 12 can be sealed, figure 5 gasket. Furthermore, Williams teaches foam enclosures and pressure release valves for internal isolation adding a panel/ledge interface.
Regarding claim 4, Williams as modified by Neenan teach a modem with load balancing, multi carrier abilities and the ability to select between networks (Williams 0056-0059).
Williams disclosure describes in detail the components and structure but fails to provide details regarding routine implementation of already disclosed load balancing, multi carrier connective and the ability to select between available networks, specifically
(1) determine wireless communication channels for cellular networks and/or WIFI networks available at a location of the case,
(2) determine signal characteristics of available cellular networks and/or WIFI networks,
(3) select a wireless communication channel as the first wireless communication channel from among the available cellular networks and/or WIFI networks based on the signal characteristics, and
(4) relay the data packets between the user device, when the user device is connected to an ethernet port or the WIFI transceiver, and the endpoint via the selected wireless communication channel.
However, routine implementations such as signal strength, latency or availability are inherent factors in load balancing and failover systems. Selecting the best available channel based on such characteristics would be a routine implementation of load balancing in wireless communications.
Regarding claim 5, Williams teaches the modem is configured to relay the data packets across multiple wireless communication channels (0056-0059).
Regarding claim 7, Williams as modified by Neenan teach MiMo cellular antennas including antenna separation and diversity (Williams 0060 and 0085) within a sealed compartment. Orthogonal polarization is a known and expected orientation for paired antennas in MiMo systems used to improve diversity and reduce correlation. Being sealed and wherein each of the paired antennas are orthogonally orientated with respect to another of the paired antennas within the sealed compartment.
Regarding claim 9, Williams teaches the modem includes a plurality of antenna terminals for a plurality of antennas but is silent to the plurality of antennas include (a) a phased antenna array and/or (b) PCB antennas and/or flex antennas.
However, official notice is taken that the above techniques were all well known in the art prior to applicant’s application.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include a phased antenna array or PCB or flex antennas with William’s existing internal mounting antennas in order to provide greater flexibility to meet size or weight or performance.
Regarding claim 13, Williams teaches the modem is further configured to switch wireless communication channels when: (1) a change is detected while periodically redetermining signal characteristics, (2) a signal characteristic of a selected wireless communication channel falls below a threshold, or (3) detect the communication case has moved more than a threshold distance.
Specifically, Williams 0056-0060 discuss failover, switching ports, load balancing or GPS based communications.
Regarding claim 14, Williams teaches switching wireless communications but does fails to specifically address switching wireless communication channels when data use of a current wireless communication channel crosses a threshold for a period of time.
However, official notice is taken that usage based network switching is well known in the art, especially in commercial dual SIM modems like Williams.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include data plan thresholds in Williams existing multi SIM system in order to have greater access in the field where cost and data limits may apply.
Regarding claim 15, Williams teaches a charging port disposed on the exterior of the case that provides a charging connection on an interior wall of the case in the sealed compartment (0082- elements 22, 24, element 80) and a battery positioned within the sealed compartment and configured to be charged by the charging connection when an external charging device is connected to the charging port, wherein the modem is configured to auto-boot when a power switch is operated by a user, the power switch being configured to provide power from the battery to the modem (0054- In some embodiments, the second external power source can be contained in its own, waterproof protective case such that the second standalone power source is protected as described herein. Case 12 and the case for the second standalone power source can be positioned side by side or on top of one another and the secondary power source can be connected to power source 24).
Regarding claim 16, Williams teaches a charging port disposed on the exterior of the case that provides a charging connection on an interior wall of the case in the sealed compartment; and a battery positioned within the sealed compartment and configured to be charged by the charging connection when an external charging device is connected to the charging port, wherein the battery is positioned on a bottom of the sealed compartment (0054 and 0082- the second external power source can be contained in its own, waterproof protective case such that the second standalone power source is protected as described herein. Case 12 and the case for the second standalone power source can be positioned side by side or on top of one another and the secondary power source can be connected to power source 24).
Examiner’s note – placing the battery on the bottom of the case is a routine packaging choice and an obvious design choice to lower center of gravity and stabilize components.
Regarding claim 17, similar to claim 16, Williams teaches a charging port disposed on the exterior of the case that provides a charging connection on an interior wall of the case in the sealed compartment; and a battery positioned within the sealed compartment and configured to be charged by the charging connection when an external charging device is connected to the charging port, wherein the battery and the modem are stacked on a bottom of the sealed compartment 0054 and 0082- the second external power source can be contained in its own, waterproof protective case such that the second standalone power source is protected as described herein. Case 12 and the case for the second standalone power source can be positioned side by side or on top of one another and the secondary power source can be connected to power source 24).
Examiner’s note – Williams teaches the battery and modem located inside the base of the case (figure 1 and 6) with vertical layering in foam cutouts. Stacking or placing both would be an obvious layout to optimize space along with the existing foam layers and straps taught by Williams.
.
Regarding claim 19, Williams teaches the charging port and battery (see rejection above) but fails to disclose the battery is an always on battery if it has sufficient charge.
However, official notice is taken that always on batteries are well known in the art.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include an always on battery in order to ensure readiness for field deployment or emergency scenarios as intended by Williams.
Claims 3, 10 and 11 are is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams and Neenan in view of Sharrah and further in view of Kwan et al (US 11,490,437).
Regarding claims 3, 10 and 11, Williams as modified by Neenan disclose a plurality of antennas including at least two cellular antennas (see Williams abstract). However Williams fail to specifically disclose the modem includes: (1) at least two SIMs and wherein the first SIM and the second SIM are each one of: a network SIM, an electronic SIM, or a remote SIM injected across a network and at least two SIMs including a first SIM and a second SIM, wherein the first SIM and the second SIM are each configured for a respective one of a first cellular network and a second cellular network, wherein the at least two SIMS includes a third SIM, and wherein the third SIM is a remote SIM.
However, the use of SIMs was well known prior to applicant’s application as taught by Kwan (abstract, col. 1- lines 46-61, claim 1 and claim 10). Specifically, Kwan teaches multiple SIM cards including the use of a remote SIM.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include SIMs configuration of Kwan to Williams already existing multiple cellular carriers functionality in order to support known carrier diversity and roaming which are common in multiple SIM routers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams and Neenan in view of Sharrah and further in view of Cunningham (US 12,309,635).
Regarding claim 6, Williams fails to disclose the modem is configured to relay duplicates of the data packets across at least a second wireless communication channel.
However, the idea bonded wireless solutions is well known as taught Cunningham (figure 7 and 12, col. 19, lines 50 to col 20, line 15 and claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Cunningham’s duplicated packets across redundant channels with Williams existing multiple communications interfaces and load balancing, in order to increase reliability which is mission critical in missions as intended by Williams.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams and Neenan in view of Sharrah and further in view of Hwang (US 2020/0221839).
Regarding claim 8, Williams as modified above describe mounting antennas to brackets and internal case surfaces. However Williams fails to disclose the plurality of antenna terminals for a plurality of antennas, wherein the plurality of antennas are terminal mounted antennas.
Hwang discloses a case for an electronics device using an auxiliary case to protect the electronic device with antennas mounted in terminals (0059).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Hwang’s antennas mounted in terminals with William’s existing antenna bracket system in order to have a common configuration in ruggedized communications hardware where space constraints are consideration as suggested by Hwang (0015).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams and Neenan in view of Sharrah and further in view of Thomson (US 2015/0280769).
Regarding claim 12, Williams as modified by Neenan and Sharrah above fails to specifically disclose the modem includes satellite transceiver components, and further comprising: a satellite antenna disposed on the exterior of the case; and an antenna cable port extending through the sealed compartment, wherein the antenna cable port is connected to the satellite antenna by an antenna cable and connected to the modem by an antenna cable on an interior side of the sealed compartment.
However, Thomson teaches a modem including satellite transceiver components “satellite modem module” (e.g., Iridium 9523 modem) integrated into the electronics package (Thomson 0050 and 0088). A satellite antenna disposed on the exterior of the case (antenna 110) designed to enable transmit/receive functions for the satellite modem and specifies antenna parameters and usage with the case (Thomson 0056, 0088 and 0094). An antenna cable port extending through the sealed compartment (Thomson teaches cabling between the satellite modem and antenna and describes sealed interfaces, end caps, and protection for external connectors 0050, 0086–0096). Thomson further teaches the antenna cable port is connected to the satellite antenna by an antenna cable and connected to the modem by an antenna cable on an interior side of the sealed compartment (Thomson specifically discloses connecting the satellite modem to an antenna via a coaxial cable and describes wiring routing and connection to the antenna 0050, 0088 and 0094).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide Williams’ sealed communication case (as reinforced by Neenan’s sealing teachings and Sharrah’s sealed feedthrough techniques) with Thomson’s satellite modem and antenna to enable satellite communications from the sealed case. Thomson addresses the specific, known problem of enabling cellular/satellite dual connectivity in a sealed enclosure and teaches the use of a satellite modem module and antenna with coaxial connection, integrating those satellite components into Williams’ case provides extended-range communications.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Williams and Neenan in view of Sharrah and further in view of Tse (US 2010/0213897).
Regarding claim 20, Williams teaches an internal rechargeable battery and external charging port. However, Williams fails to specifically disclose changing the power delivery setting post recharge (i.e., dynamic adjustment of power profile after recharge).
Tse teaches a battery cell management system with a control unit monitors the presence of an external charging source and switches the converter inputs, maintaining output loads even during recharge. They system defines distinct output power modes based on whether it is in charge or discharge state, effectively adjusting its power delivery profile post recharge (abstract, 0039, 0041 and 0045).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to include Tse’s configuration power output modes based on charge state with Williams existing battery charging system in order to enhance operational versatility and reliability.
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 EDAN ORGAD whose telephone number is (571)272-7884. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM.
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 director, Deborah Reynolds can be reached at 571-272-0734. 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.
/EDAN ORGAD/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2414