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 .
2. Applicants’ amendments have overcome the objection to the abstract, and the 112 first paragraph and 112 second paragraph rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. Claims 17, 21, 22 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang US 12512902 in view of El-Hassan et al. US 20240297669 A1.
5. Consider claim 17. Wang (fig 1) teaches an electronic device (110) comprising: a first transceiver (col 6, lines 24-27)) configured toat the UE which causes the transceivers to communicate to either in multiple bands. However, El-Hassen et al. teaches such (see fig 6 which may be included in the electronic device 10). El-Hassen teaches a controller 154 (para 0040….156 which may be included in the control circuitry 154, may control the generation of signals to be transmitted by the electronic device 10 to a device in a satellite network or non-terrestrial network, such as a satellite….) as well as 5G wireless communication. It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to locally control the communication bands for both terrestrial on non-terrestrial communication as taught by El-Hassan et al in Wang to allow for faster switching thus making the system more efficient.
6. Regarding claim 21. Wang teaches (col 6, lines 35-44 plural bands for plural transceivers) wherein the second transceiver is configured to communicate the second wireless signals in a first portion of the second frequency range (the “portions” being the selected frequency for communication in the band selected for communication (for example LTE to another UE), and communicate third wireless signals (when communicating with a satellite) in a second portion of the second frequency range (satellite bands (col 6, lines 40-45).
7. Regarding claim 22. The combination of Wang in view of El-Hassan et al inherently teach wherein the controller (154) is configured to cause the second transceiver to communicate using the second portion of the second frequency range with a third terrestrial base station (122) or a third non-terrestrial (162) network node (note both are available) while causing the second transceiver (Wang teaches plural transceivers for plural bands) to communicate using the first portion (selected frequency) of the second frequency range (depending on whether its communicating with satellite or cellular) with the second terrestrial base station (121) or the second non-terrestrial network node (161).
8. Regarding claims 25. El-Hassan et al teaches (fig 6) wherein the second transceiver (170) comprises a plurality of phase-locked loops (PLLs), each PLL of the plurality of PLLs (118, 120 with switch 116) configured to generate the second wireless signals in a different frequency range than other PLLs of the plurality of PLLs.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 1, 3-14, 16, 23 and 24 allowed.
10. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 17 has been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. Note, the addition of “controller…configured to cause” as well as the many limitations deleted in original claim 17, represents a new claim scope not previously considered which causes the reference to Freisleben to be dropped and El-Hassan et al to be added.
11. 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.
Conclusion
12. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th from 530am to 330pm and Fri from 530am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights