DETAILED ACTION
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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 nonstatutory 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10-17, and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10,539,649 in view of Friday et al (IDS reference – US 10,848,911).
Regarding claims 1-9, U.S. Patent No. 10,539,649 claims 1-8, and 10 disclose the claimed invention (i.e. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because even though there are variations in the wording of the claims, the differences in the claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made) except for wherein the apparatus is configured to detect and to filter out a communication interference source as claimed. Friday et al teach in the same field of endeavor an apparatus configured to detect and to filter out a communication interference source (column 5, lines 15-28; column 7, lines 27-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 10,539,649 in view of Friday et al to incorporate such apparatus configured to detect and to filter out a communication interference source as taught by Friday et al to gain the advantage of effectively determining and eliminating interference in a communication system.
Regarding claims 10-18, U.S. Patent No. 10,539,649 claims 11-17, and 19-20 disclose the claimed invention (i.e. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because even though there are variations in the wording of the claims, the differences in the claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made) except for the steps of detecting an undesirable communications source and filtering out the undesirable communications source as claimed. Friday et al teach in the same field of endeavor the steps of detecting an undesirable communications source and filtering out the undesirable communications source (column 5, lines 15-28; column 7, lines 27-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 10,539,649 in view of Friday et al to incorporate such steps of detecting an undesirable communications source and filtering out the undesirable communications source as taught by Friday et al to gain the advantage of effectively determining and eliminating interference in a communication system.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8, 10-17, and 19-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,221,391 in view of Friday et al (IDS reference – US 10,848,911).
Regarding claims 1-9, U.S. Patent No. 11,221,391 claims 1-8, and 10 disclose the claimed invention (i.e. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because even though there are variations in the wording of the claims, the differences in the claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made) except for wherein the apparatus is configured to detect and to filter out a communication interference source as claimed. Friday et al teach in the same field of endeavor an apparatus configured to detect and to filter out a communication interference source (column 5, lines 15-28; column 7, lines 27-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 11,221,391 in view of Friday et al to incorporate such apparatus configured to detect and to filter out a communication interference source as taught by Friday et al to gain the advantage of effectively determining and eliminating interference in a communication system.
Regarding claims 10-18, U.S. Patent No. 11,221,391 claims 11-17, and 19-20 disclose the claimed invention (i.e. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because even though there are variations in the wording of the claims, the differences in the claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made) except for the steps of detecting an undesirable communications source and filtering out the undesirable communications source as claimed. Friday et al teach in the same field of endeavor the steps of detecting an undesirable communications source and filtering out the undesirable communications source (column 5, lines 15-28; column 7, lines 27-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 11,221,391 in view of Friday et al to incorporate such steps of detecting an undesirable communications source and filtering out the undesirable communications source as taught by Friday et al to gain the advantage of effectively determining and eliminating interference in a communication system.
Claims 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,740,319 in view of Friday et al (IDS reference – US 10,848,911).
Regarding claims 1-9, U.S. Patent No. 11,740,319 claims 1-9 disclose the claimed invention (i.e. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because even though there are variations in the wording of the claims, the differences in the claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made) except for wherein the apparatus is configured to detect and to filter out a communication interference source. Friday et al teach in the same field of endeavor an apparatus configured to detect and to filter out a communication interference source (column 5, lines 15-28; column 7, lines 27-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 11,740,319 in view of Friday et al to incorporate such apparatus configured to detect and to filter out a communication interference source as taught by Friday et al to gain the advantage of effectively determining and eliminating interference in a communication system.
Regarding claims 10-18, U.S. Patent No. 11,740,319 claims 10-18 disclose the claimed invention (i.e. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because even though there are variations in the wording of the claims, the differences in the claims would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made) except for the steps of detecting an undesirable communications source and filtering out the undesirable communications source as claimed. Friday et al teach in the same field of endeavor the steps of detecting an undesirable communications source and filtering out the undesirable communications source (column 5, lines 15-28; column 7, lines 27-31). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify U.S. Patent No. 11,740,319 in view of Friday et al to incorporate such steps of detecting an undesirable communications source and filtering out the undesirable communications source as taught by Friday et al to gain the advantage of effectively determining and eliminating interference in a communication system.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-8, 10-14, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friday et al (IDS reference – US 7,260,408) in view of Lawrence (US 2015/0118985).
Regarding claim 1, Friday et al disclose an apparatus for indicating a direction of a radio signal comprising (Fig 2B – radio module 130. See col 6, lines 36-39, radio module includes frequency modulation/demodulation of radio frequency signals and provide digital data streams in transmit direction) comprising:
at least one vector detection device (Fig 2B – antenna selector 120. See col 6, lines 52-56, antenna selector operative to receive signals transduced by antennas, select an antenna based on detected signal and provide the signal corresponding to selected antenna to radio module. See also col 6, lines 36-39, radio module 130 induces frequency modulation/demodulation functionality for, in receive direction, demodulating radio frequency signals and providing digital data streams, and in tine transmit direction. See also col 7, lines 18-27, the peak gains of the antennas can be offset from one another at other angles determined according to other factors or criteria, such as two antennas located at the end of a room may be offset at 90 degrees relative to each other (i.e. broadly interpreted as orthogonal) which can effect a sectorization capability to the infrastructure radio transceiver (i.e. broadly interpreted as vector detection based on Paragraph 19 of applicant’s specification describing vector detection as generating signal strengths indicating orthogonal direction values relating to location of a source in three-dimensional space)) comprising two or more antennas (Fig 2B – antennas 112a and 112b), wherein the attenuation is arranged to vary an amount of attenuation with an angle of the source with respect to the at least one of the antennas (col 7, lines 9-15, peak gains of antennas are oriented relative to each other at an angle A about the vertical, where A is equal 360/n degrees. See also col 7, lines 18-20, the peak gains of the antennas can be offset from one another at other angles determined according to other factors or criteria. See also col 7, lines 27-31, system enhances performance under load conditions in that, by selecting an antenna, the effect of noise and other signal interference sources emanation from being the selected antenna are greatly attenuated), and wherein the apparatus is configured to detect and to filter out a communication interference source (See column 5, lines 15-28, the wireless node location functionality may be employed to locate a detected source of interference, such as a non-802.11 compliant device. See also column 7, lines 27-31, system enhances performance under load conditions in that, by selecting an antenna, the effect of noise and other signal interference sources emanation from being the selected antenna are greatly attenuated).
Friday et al do not explicitly disclose an attenuating material configured so that radio signals received by at least one of the antennas passes through the attenuating material, wherein the attenuating material is arranged to reduce a signal strength of received radio signals as claimed. Lawrence teaches in the same field of endeavor an attenuating material configured so that radio signals received by at least one of the antennas passes through the attenuating material, wherein the attenuating material is arranged to reduce a signal strength of received radio signals (See paragraph [0033], A radio frequency (RF) attenuator or shield is positioned between the first antenna and the second antenna. As referenced within this application, the `RF shield` and `RF attenuator` are interchangeably used to describe any material, component or medium, either active or inactive, that measurably reduces the signal strength of a radio signal. For example, in at least one embodiment, an RF shield can comprise an electrically conductive material or medium such as a metallic sheet, metallic fabric, metallic screen, metallic paint, or any other electrically conductive material or medium, including highly conductive non-metallic materials.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Friday et al in view of Lawrence to incorporate such attenuating material configured so that radio signals received by at least one of the antennas passes through the attenuating material, wherein the attenuating material is arranged to reduce a signal strength of received radio signals as taught by Lawrence to gain advantage of providing a radio apparatus with a higher sensitivity and capability of detecting and eliminating interference; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claims 2 and 11, Friday et al discloses the at least one vector detection device comprises two vector detection devices (col 9, lines 35-46 – antenna selector may operate in parallel, whore parallel detectors provide signal attributes associated with antennas).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, Friday et al disclose the two vector detection devices are configured to generate signal strengths indicating orthogonal direction values relating to a location of the source in three-dimensional space (col 7, lines 18-27, the peak gains of the antennas can be offset from one another at other angles determined according to other factors or criteria, such as two antennas located at the end of a room (i.e. broadly interpreted antennas in room as a source in three-dimensional space) may be offset at 90 degrees relative to each other (i.e. broadly interpreted as orthogonal) which can effect a sectorization capability to the infrastructure radio transceiver).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, Friday et al disclose the two vector detection devices comprise a first vector detection device (Fig 3A – detector 126a) configured to generate signal strengths indicating a horizontal angle value corresponding to a horizontal axis (col 6, lines 52-61, antenna selector operative to receive signals transduced by antennas, where directional antennas have wide beamwidth directed away from each other and each directional antenna has a horizontal beamwidth. See also col 12, lines 21-29, RF predication model used to estimate expected signal strength at various locations and location coordinates define location in a horizontal plane) and a second vector detection device (Fig 3A – detector 126b) configured to generate signal strengths indicating a vertical angle value corresponding to a vertical axis (col 7, lines 9-15, peak gains of antennas are oriented relative to each other at an angle A about the vertical axis, where A is equal 360/n degrees). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Friday et al disclose the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the attenuation comprises a first antenna attenuator (Fig 1A – antenna 112a; col 7, lines 27-31, system enhances performance under load conditions in that, by selecting an antenna, the effect of noise and other signal interference sources emanation from being the selected antenna are greatly attenuated (i.e. broadly interpreted as also being an antenna attenuator due to attenuation of the signal by selected antenna)) and a second antenna attenuator (Fig 1A – antenna 112b) arranged in an opposite direction from the first antenna attenuator (col 5, lines 52-61, antenna selector operative to receive signals transduced by antennas, where directional antennas have wide beamwidth directed away from each other and each directional antenna has a horizontal beamwidth).
Friday et al do not explicitly disclose the attenuation as attenuating material as claimed. Lawrence teaches in the same field of endeavor the attenuating material (See paragraph [0033], A radio frequency (RF) attenuator or shield is positioned between the first antenna and the second antenna. As referenced within this application, the `RF shield` and `RF attenuator` are interchangeably used to describe any material, component or medium, either active or inactive, that measurably reduces the signal strength of a radio signal. For example, in at least one embodiment, an RF shield can comprise an electrically conductive material or medium such as a metallic sheet, metallic fabric, metallic screen, metallic paint, or any other electrically conductive material or medium, including highly conductive non-metallic materials.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Friday et al in view of Lawrence to incorporate such attenuation as attenuating material as taught by Lawrence to gain advantage of providing a radio apparatus with a higher sensitivity and capability of detecting and eliminating interference; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Friday et al disclose at least one of a differential amplifier or a processor (Fig 7 – processor 76) configured to compare the received signal strengths from the two or more antennas (col 12, lines 53-67, wireless node location module includes more than one RF physical model of the environment [...] each RF physical model is a set of coverage maps corresponding to the antennas of the infrastructure radio transceivers [...] and uses signals transmitted between the infrastructure radio transceivers [...] wireless node functionality compares signal strength and known locations of infrastructure radio transceiver). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 8, Friday et al disclose two or more radio frequency (RF) detectors (Fig 3A – detectors 126a, 126b; col 9, lines 35-46, antenna selector may operate in parallel, where parallel detectors provide signal attributes associated with antennas), wherein each of the two or more RF detectors is respectively coupled to each of the two or more antennas (col 9, lines 35-46, antenna selector may operate in parallel, where parallel detectors provide signal attributes associated with antennas), and wherein each of the two or more RF detectors is configured to generate one of the received signal strengths (col 12, lines 53-67, wireless node location module includes more than one RF physical model of the environment [...] each RF physical model is a set of coverage maps corresponding to the antennas of the infrastructure radio transceivers [...] and uses signals transmitted between the infrastructure radio transceivers [...] wireless node functionality compares signal strength and known locations of infrastructure radio transceiver. See also col 8, lines 52-61, antenna selector operative to receive signals transduced by antennas, where directional antennas have wide beamwidth directed away from each other and each directional antenna has a horizontal beamwidth). While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 10, Friday et al disclose a method for indicating a direction of a radio signal (col 6, lines 36-39, radio module 130 includes frequency modulation/demodulation of radio frequency signals and provide digital data streams in transmit direction), comprising:
receiving a radio transmission by at least one vector detection device (col 6, lines 52-56, antenna selector operative to receive signals transduced by antennas, select an antenna based on detected signal and provide the signal corresponding to selected antenna to radio module. See also col 6, lines 36-39, radio module 130 includes frequency modulation/demodulation functionality for, in receive direction, demodulating radio frequency signals and providing digital data streams, and in the transmit direction. See also col 7, lines 18-27, the peak gains of the antennas can be offset from one another at other angles determined according to other factors or criteria, such as two antennas located at the end of a room may be offset at 90 degrees relative to each ether (i.e. broadly interpreted as orthogonal) which can effect a sectorization capability to the infrastructure radio transceiver (i.e. broadly interpreted as vector detection based on Paragraph 19 of applicant’s specification describing vector detection as generating signal strengths indicating orthogonal direction values relating to location of a source in three-dimensional space)), wherein the at least one vector detection device comprises two or more antennas (col 6, lines 52-53. antenna selector operative to receive signals transduced by antennas) wherein the attenuation is arranged to vary an amount of attenuation with an angle of the source with respect to at least one of the antennas (col 7, lines 9-15, peak gains of antennas are oriented relative to each other at an angle A about the vertical, where A is equal 360/n degrees. See also col 7, lines 18-20, the peak gains of the antennas can be offset from one another at other angles determined according to other factors or criteria. See also col 7, lines 27-31, system enhances performance under load conditions in that, by selecting an antenna, the effect of noise and other signal interference sources emanation from being the selected antenna are greatly attenuated);
detecting an undesirable communications source (column 5, lines 15-28, the wireless node location functionality may be employed to locate a detected source of interference, such as a non-802.11 compliant device);
filtering out the undesirable communications source (column 7, lines 27-31, system enhances performance under load conditions in that, by selecting an antenna, the effect of noise and other signal interference sources emanation from being the selected antenna are greatly attenuated);
comparing received signal strengths from the two or more antennas (col 12, lines 53-67, wireless node location module includes more than one RF physical model of the environment [...] each RF physical model is a set of coverage maps corresponding to the antennas of the infrastructure radio transceivers [...] and uses signals transmitted between the infrastructure radio transceivers [...] wireless node functionality compares signal strength and known locations of infrastructure radio transceiver); and
generating a signal indicating a direction of the radio transmission based on comparing the received signal strengths (col 12, lines 53-67, wireless node location module includes more than one RF physical model of the environment [...] each RF physical model is a set of coverage maps corresponding to the antennas of the infrastructure radio transceivers arid uses signals transmitted between the infrastructure radio transceivers [...] wireless node functionality compares signal strength and known locations of infrastructure radio transceiver).
Friday et al do not explicitly disclose an attenuating material configured so that radio signals received by at least one of the antennas passes through the attenuating material, wherein the attenuating material is arranged to reduce a signal strength of received radio signals as claimed. Lawrence teaches in the same field of endeavor an attenuating material configured so that radio signals received by at least one of the antennas passes through the attenuating material, wherein the attenuating material is arranged to reduce a signal strength of received radio signals (See paragraph [0033], A radio frequency (RF) attenuator or shield is positioned between the first antenna and the second antenna. As referenced within this application, the `RF shield` and `RF attenuator` are interchangeably used to describe any material, component or medium, either active or inactive, that measurably reduces the signal strength of a radio signal. For example, in at least one embodiment, an RF shield can comprise an electrically conductive material or medium such as a metallic sheet, metallic fabric, metallic screen, metallic paint, or any other electrically conductive material or medium, including highly conductive non-metallic materials.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Friday et al in view of Lawrence to incorporate such attenuating material configured so that radio signals received by at least one of the antennas passes through the attenuating material, wherein the attenuating material is arranged to reduce a signal strength of received radio signals as taught by Lawrence to gain advantage of providing a radio apparatus with a higher sensitivity and capability of detecting and eliminating interference; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding product claim 18, the claim is rejected for similar reasons as stated in the method claim 10 above, wherein Friday et al in view of Lawrence disclose a non-transitory tangible computer-readable medium for indicating a direction of a radio transmission (Friday et al – col 11, lines 23-27, radio transceivers transmit signal strength/antenna data back to wireless transmitter, which may be a laptop computer (i.e. interpreted to use computer-readable medium). See col 6, lines Ln 36-39, radio module 130 includes frequency modulation/demodulation of radio frequency signals arid provide digital data streams in transmit direction), the computer-readable medium comprising executable instructions for performing the steps of the method claim 10.
Claims 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friday et al modified by Lawrence as applied to claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of Kim et al (IDS reference – US 7,127,222).
Regarding claims 6 and 16, Friday et al disclose the at least one vector detection device generates a direction value (Friday et al – col 6, lines 36-39, radio module 130 includes frequency modulation/demodulation of radio frequency signals and provide digital data streams in transmit direction). Friday et al modified by Lawrence do not explicitly disclose a non-attenuated antenna, and wherein the apparatus is configured to compare an attenuated value and a non-attenuated value. Kim et al teach in the same field of endeavor a wireless communication systems (col 1, lines 12-14) and teaches a non-attenuated antenna (Fig 1 – antenna 12; col 12, lines 64-66, gain of radio receiver may be increased by switching transmit/receive switch into non-attenuation mode), and wherein the apparatus is configured to compare an attenuated value (col 12, lines 5-10, comparison of power level where gain of radio receiver is decreased by adjusting to attenuation mode) and a non-attenuated value (col 11, lines 61-66, if comparison is favorable, the gain of the radio receiver is increased by switching to non-attenuation mode). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Friday et al modified by Lawrence in view of Kim et al to incorporate a non-attenuated antenna, and wherein the apparatus is configured to compare an attenuated value as taught by Kim et al to provide automatic gain control of a radio receiver; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Friday et al modified by Lawrence as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Jalali (IDS reference – US 2015/0236778).
Regarding claim 9, Friday et al modified by Hama discloses the apparatus but fail to teach the apparatus is a drone. Jalali teaches in the same field of endeavor of provisioning broadband internet access to mobile platforms, such as drones (paragraph 4) and the apparatus is a drone (Fig 1 – drone 110-1; paragraph 38). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Friday et al modified by Lawrence in view of Jalali to incorporate the apparatus as a drone as taught by Jalali to provide higher data rates to high speed vehicles; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
While patent drawings are not drawn to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 59 CCPA 866, 455 F.2d 1069, 173 USPQ 25 (1972).
Regarding claim 17, Friday et al modified by Lawrence do not explicitly disclose the at least one vector detection device is attached to a drone. Jalali teaches in the same field of endeavor of provisioning broadband internet access to mobile platforms, such as drones (paragraph 4) and the at least one vector detection device is attached to a drone (paragraph 23, sensors detect one or more mobile platform orientation changes). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Friday et al modified by Lawrence in view of Jalali to incorporate the at least one vector detection device is attached to a drone as taught by Jalali to provide higher data rates to high speed vehicles; and also since it has been held that if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill (MPEP 2143).
For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
Conclusion
The cited prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11,804,916 discloses a system for determining a direction of arrival of a radio signal being emitted by a radio emitter, the system including: a single antenna configured to be moved through multiple spatial positions and configured to receive the radio signal at two or more of the multiple spatial positions; and a controller configured to determine one or more directions of arrival of the radio signal based on: a radio signal frequency; at least one residual phase difference value between at least two of two or more residual phase values each obtained based on the radio signal received by the single antenna at one of the two or more multiple spatial positions; and at least a portion of a motion data indicative of the movement of the single antenna.
US 10,879,965 discloses a pre-5th-Generation (5G) or 5G communication system to be provided for supporting higher data rates Beyond 4th-Generation (4G) communication system such as Long Term Evolution (LTE). According to various embodiments of the present disclosure, an apparatus of a base station of a wireless communication system may comprise at least one transceiver, and at least one processor operatively coupled to the at least one transceiver. The at least one processor is configured to transmit, to a terminal, a plurality of reference signals including a first plurality of reference signals corresponding to a first polarized wave and a second plurality of reference signals corresponding to a second polarized wave, and receive feedback information indicative of at least one reference signal of the plurality of reference signals, wherein the first plurality of reference signals respectively correspond to a plurality of beams, the second plurality of reference signals respectively correspond to the plurality of beams, and the second polarized wave may be orthogonal to the first polarized wave.
US 2019/0373575 discloses a receiver has a plurality of antennas and receives a plurality of radio signals from a plurality of transmitters of different cells of a wireless communication network. Each radio signal has a position reference signal sequence and is transmitted to the receiver via a radio channel including a plurality of path components. The receiver processes the radio signal to estimate for a path component the time of arrival of the PRS sequence and to determine for a path component a path strength value of the PRS sequence. A position of the receiver is estimated using the ToAs and the PS values.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHUONG P NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3445. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 10:00-10:00 EST.
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, JACK KEITH can be reached at (571) 272-6878. 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.
/CHUONG P NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646