DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
2. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
3. The claim(s) (claim 1, 2, 11 and 19) in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
4. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: (1) “at least one positioning device configured to generate and broadcast location information; one or more network devices configured to receive the location information from the at least one positioning device” in claim 1; (2) “a positioning module configured to obtain location information…..” in claims 2, 11 and 19 (see figures 1, 3, specification, par 0022-0030).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
5. 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.
Please note: Examiner has cited particular columns, line numbers, and figures in the references as applied to the claims below for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teaching of the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well.
Applicants are reminded that MPEP 2141.02 states:
A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
6. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
7. Claims 1-2, 5, 10-11, 14 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Richards et al. (US 20220210661) (hereinafter Richards).
Regarding claims 1 and 10:
As shown in figures 1-12, Richards discloses a communication system for a frequency management system (see figures 2-3, 4 and 7-8), the communication system comprising:
at least one positioning device (202 in figures 2-3) configured to generate and broadcast location information (in step 208 of figures 2-3 Richards shows wireless communication device 202 (at least one positioning device) is broadcasting location information to the network node 204);
one or more network devices (204-206 in figures 2-3) configured to receive the location information from the at least one positioning device (in step 208 Richards shows that the network node 204 (one or more network devices) receives location information from the wireless communication device 202 (at least one positioning device));
wherein the one or more network devices (204-206 in figures 2-3) are configured to perform a frequency communication process with the frequency management system (Automatic Frequency Controller (AFC) interpreted to be frequency management system. See par 0029-0030) (in par 0011 Richards teaches “The network node is configured to send (402), to the wireless communication device, an indication (212) of useable frequencies for unlicensed wireless communication by the wireless communication device”) by using the received location information as current location information of the one or more network devices (figures 2-3 also shows that network node 204 uses location information (see location information in step 208) received from wireless communication device 202 to transmit an indication of useable frequencies for unlicensed wireless communication) (par 0011, 0026, 0029, 0045, 0049, 0051, 0059).
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 19:
As shown in figures 1-12, Richards discloses a positioning device (202 in figures 2-3) for a frequency management system, communicatively connecting to a communication system (see figures 2-3, 4 and 7-8) that includes one or more network devices (204-206 in figures 2-3), and the positioning device (202 in figures 2-3) comprising:
a processing circuit (602 in figure 6 and 3325 in figure 8);
a positioning module (3328 in figure 8) configured to obtain location information (in step 208 Richards shows that the network node 204 (one or more network devices) receives location information from the wireless communication device 202 (at least one positioning device)); and
a short-range wireless communication circuit (6 GHz wireless communication device interpreted to be a short-range wireless communication circuit. See par 0027) controlled by the processing circuit for connecting to the one or more network devices (figure 8 shows processing circuit 3328 is connecting to the one or more network devices), so as to broadcast the location information to the one or more network devices (in step 208 of figures 2-3 Richards shows wireless communication device 202 (at least one positioning device) is broadcasting location information to the network node 204),
wherein the location information received by the one or more network devices are used to perform a frequency communication process (in par 0011 Richards teaches “The network node is configured to send (402), to the wireless communication device, an indication (212) of useable frequencies for unlicensed wireless communication by the wireless communication device”) with the frequency management system (Automatic Frequency Controller (AFC) interpreted to be frequency management system. See par 0029-0030) (par 0011, 0026, 0029, 0045, 0049, 0051, 0059).
Regarding claims 5 and 14:
Richards further discloses wherein the frequency management system is an automated frequency coordination (AFC) system (par 0029-0030), the processing circuit is a global positioning system (GPS) module (satellite system interpreted to be GPS system. Par 0025), and the short-range wireless communication circuit is a Bluetooth communication circuit (6 GHz wireless communication device interpreted to be a short-range wireless communication circuit (Bluetooth communication circuit). See par 0027).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. Claims 3, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards in view of Furuichi et al. (US 20200314769) (hereinafter Furuichi).
Regarding claim 3, 12 and 20:
Richards discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching wherein the location information includes latitude information, longitude information and altitude information.
However, Furuichi in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the location information includes latitude information, longitude information and altitude information (par 0083). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the location information as taught by Furuichi to modify the system and method of Richards in order to acquire location information (par 0083) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
11. Claims 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Richards in view of CRONIN et al. (US 20180248869) (hereinafter CRONIN).
Regarding claim 8 and 17:
Richards discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching wherein the processing circuit is further configured to encrypt the location information before the location information is broadcasted, and each of the one or more network devices is configured to decrypt the location information in response to receiving the location information.
However, CRONIN in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the processing circuit is further configured to encrypt the location information before the location information is broadcasted, and each of the one or more network devices is configured to decrypt the location information in response to receiving the location information (figure 9, par 0089). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the location information as taught by CRONIN to modify the system and method of Richards in order to provide compatible format is compatible with the connection between the wireless communication device and the location infrastructure of the requested goods and/or services (par 0089) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
12. Claims 9 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Richards in view of YUCEK et al. (US 20190075549) (hereinafter YUCEK).
Regarding claim 9 and 18:
Richards discloses all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching wherein the positioning device is further configured to broadcast a unique identifier along with the location information, and the one or more network devices are configured to perform the frequency communication process according to the unique identifier and the location information.
However, YUCEK in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the positioning device is further configured to broadcast a unique identifier along with the location information, and the one or more network devices are configured to perform the frequency communication process according to the unique identifier and the location information (see 802-808 in figure 8 and 902-906 in figure 9, par 0025, 0135-0140). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the location information as taught by YUCEK to modify the system and method of Richards in order to determine a frequency channel on which to communicate (par 0025) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
13. Claims 4 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Richards in view of Furuichi as applied to claims 3, 12 and 20 above and further in view of Allen et al. (US 20160277419) (hereinafter Allen).
Regarding claims 4 and 13:
Richards and Furuichi disclose all of the subject matter as described above except for specifically teaching wherein the positioning device further includes an altimeter for obtaining the altitude information according to air pressure.
However, Allen in the same field of endeavor teaches wherein the positioning device further includes an altimeter for obtaining the altitude information according to air pressure (in par 0072 Allen teaches “The position components 1362 may include location sensor components (e.g., a Global Position System (GPS) receiver component), altitude sensor components (e.g., altimeters or barometers that detect air pressure from which altitude may be derived)”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the location information as taught by Allen to modify the system and method of Richards in order to detect air pressure from which altitude may be derived (par 0072) (See KSR Rationale: Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results).
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 6-7 and 15-16 are 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.
15. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record, Richards does not teach or suggest wherein the processing circuit is configured to acquire the location information from the positioning module repeatedly, and control the short-range wireless communication circuit to periodically broadcast the location information to the one or more network devices according to a first predetermined time interval.
Conclusion
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ANANTHARAMAN et al. (US 20240098615) disclose systems and methods for use of automated frequency coordination (AFC) to manage transmission power and frequencies. A device transmits, to a network entity, an AFC request. The device receives, from the network entity, an AFC response, the AFC response including an AFC power level indication of one or more nearest neighboring entities. The device sets a transmit power of the device based at least in part on the AFC power level indication of at least one of the one or more nearest neighboring entities, and the device transmits at the transmit power. In some instances, the device transmits a first number of AFC requests during a first instance of travelling along a path and transmits a second number of AFC requests less than the first number of AFC requests during one or more successive instances after the first instance of travelling along the path.
Wang et al. (US 20230413189) disclose methods and apparatus to configure low power transmitters that operate in unlicensed 6 GHz spectrum in an effort to reduce the likelihood that the low power transmitters will cause interference to incumbent operators of fixed microwave links in the same 6 GHz spectrum. The low power transmitters may be any transmitter in the unlicensed spectrum, including for example, low power indoor access points, 5G small cells, and the like.
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KABIR A TIMORY whose telephone number is (571)270-1674. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:00 AM-3:00 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, Hannah S Wang can be reached at 571-272-9018. 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.
/KABIR A TIMORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631