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 .
Double Patenting
The non-statutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A non-statutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on non-statutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a non-statutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 rejected on the ground of non-statutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5, 7-9 and 12 of U.S. Patent No. 11,910,208. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because.
Claim 1 of the patent anticipates claims 2, 4, 9, 11, 16 and 18 of the pending claims.
Claim 5 of the patent anticipates claims 3, 10 and 17 of the pending claims.
Claim 7 of the patent anticipates claims 5, 12 and 19 of the pending claims.
Claim 8 of the patent anticipates claims 6, 13 and 20 of the pending claims.
Claim 9 of the patent anticipates claims 7, 14 and 21 of the pending claims.
Claim 12 of the patent anticipates claims 8 and 15 of the pending claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claims 2-4, 6, 9-11, 13, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by US 2020/0295817 (Loghin et al.).
As to claims 2, 9 and 16, Loghin teaches a system (3, fig 3) comprising: one or more processors (32, fig 3); and one or more computer-readable media storing computer executable instructions that, when executed, cause the one or more processors to perform acts comprising:
outputting a test signal from an antenna (11, 12, fig 3), the test signal having a direction (paragraphs 53, 54, 59, 60 and 63, control unit makes initiator antennas transmit training signals in different directions in a sector);
in response to the test signal, receiving a confirmation signal from a transceiver; determining a strength of the confirmation signal; determining the strength of the confirmation signal meets a transmission criteria or parameter (see paragraphs 59, 62 and 67, in response to the training signals from the initiator antennas the responder antennas transmit training signals, signal strength of the training signals measured for beam forming decisions); and
causing the antenna to output a network signal in a direction that avoids the direction of the test signal (see paragraphs 64 and 68, different directions in a sector tested so that a final antenna beam combination is selected that would exclude many of the directions tested).
As to claims 3, 10 and 17, Loghin further teaches wherein the confirmation signal is received from the direction from which the test signal was transmitted (see paragraph 59, test signals from initiator and responder antennas transmitted in various directions).
As to claims 4, 11 and 18, Loghin further teaches placing the transceiver near or at an incumbent station (see figure 3, element 10~incubant station).
As to claims 6, 13 and 20, Loghin further teaches wherein the transceiver, in response to receiving the test signal, outputs the confirmation signal in all directions or in the direction from which the test signal was received (see paragraph 59, test signals from responder antennas transmitted in various directions to the initiator antennas).
As to claims 8 and 15, Loghin further teaches wherein the transmission criteria or parameter is a strongest confirmation signal ((see paragraphs 60- 68, training signals sent to and by responder in all directions of a sector and measured for signal power. The direction having the least path loss would have the strongest training signals in that direction).
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.
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.
As to claims 5, 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0295817 (Loghin et al.) in view Well Known Prior Art (Official Notice).
As to claims 5, 12 and 19, what is lacking is wherein the transceiver is physically positioned outside of or in line with a transmission path between the incumbent station and a satellite in communication with the incumbent station.
Examiner takes Official Notice that it was well known in the arts at the time of the invention for stations to have land based and satcom communication. In combination with Loghin this would render a transceiver on the incumbent station that also possesses a SATCOM transceiver such that the transceiver would effectively be in the transmission path to the satellite.
It would have been obvious to apply this teaching to Loghin so as to allow for enhanced communication.
Claim 7, 14, 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2020/0295817 (Loghin et al.) in view of US 2022/0394736 (Challita et al.).
As to claims 7, 14 and 21, what is lacking is wherein the transmission criteria or parameter is a threshold, the threshold being associated with a strength at or above which the network signal interferes with reception of an incumbent station.
In analogous art, Challita teaches the use of sensors signal strength thresholds on measurements made at locations having different networks such that a signal strength above said threshold is deemed to interference with the other network (~incumbent station) (see Challita, paragraph 97).
It would have been obvious to apply this teaching to Loghin so as to minimize interference between coexisting networks.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAZDA SABOURI whose telephone number is (571)272-8892. The examiner can normally be reached 10 am-7 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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/MAZDA SABOURI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2641