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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant's arguments, on page 7, with respect to priority have been fully considered but they are only persuasive in part. Claim 1 as amended no longer contains subject matter not found in provisional application No. 63400784. However, claims 20 is still directed towards antenna patterns and thus still face the same priority issue as in the previous action.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 7, with respect to the objection to the specification have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 7, with respect to the objection to the claims have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection to the claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, on page 7, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Moorti (US 20130230087 A1).
Priority
Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) is acknowledged. Applicant has not complied with one or more conditions for receiving the benefit of an earlier filing date as follows:
The later-filed application must be an application for a patent for an invention which is also disclosed in the prior application (the parent or original nonprovisional application or provisional application). The disclosure of the invention in the parent application and in the later-filed application must be sufficient to comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, except for the best mode requirement. See Transco Products, Inc. v. Performance Contracting, Inc., 38 F.3d 551, 32 USPQ2d 1077 (Fed. Cir. 1994).
The disclosure of the prior-filed application, Application No. 63400784, fails to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. Claims 20 recites the usage of different antenna patterns and the creation of an antenna array pattern. These are not supported by the provisional, and thus are not entitled to the benefit of the provisional application.
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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-8, 10, 12-14, and 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong (US 20160100437 A1) in view of Nixon (US 20200387147 A1) and further in view of Moorti (US 20130230087 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Armstrong discloses:
“A wireless industrial process field device, comprising… a controller configured to communicate with the process interface element; an RF circuit board; a plurality of RF transceivers carried on the RF circuit board and each configured to send or receive an RF signal, at least one RF signal containing information related to the process variable; a plurality of antennas carried on the RF circuit board each coupled to one of the plurality of RF transceivers… wherein the controller controls operation of the plurality of RF transceivers to communicate with a remote device through transmission of RF signals through at least one of the plurality of antennas...” ([para 0068]: “PWAP 300 includes a communications engine 302, which includes a host processor 304 and a memory 306, i number of network interfaces 314.1-314.i, and k number of antennas 322.1-322.k.” ; [para 0070]: “Further in accordance with such embodiments, network interface 314.1 could correspond to a wireless industrial automation communication protocol, such as WirelessHART or ISA 100.11a, for example, while network interface 314.2 corresponds to another wireless communication protocol, such as WLAN, BLUETOOTH, etc.”)
Armstrong does not explicitly disclose “a process interface element configured to interface with a process fluid and control or sense a process variable of the process fluid” nor “which provide a plurality of signal paths… and determines signal path quality of the plurality of signal paths.”
However, Nixon discloses the missing feature “a process interface element configured to interface with a process fluid and control or sense a process variable of the process fluid” ([para 0095]: “In another example, PN 40c may be a CIOC (having a respective Pub/Sub Layer 42c) to which six different field devices PNa-PNf are communicatively connected, or PN 40c may be a wireless access point 178 or an EIOC (having a respective Pub/Sub Layer 40c) to which various other physical components PNa-PNf without Pub/Sub Layers are communicatively connected.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Armstrong and Nixon, to modify the field device with sensor functionality and the access point with communication functionality as disclosed by Armstrong, and have them integrated as disclosed by Nixon. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Armstrong with Nixon to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Nixon also does not disclose “each of the plurality of antennas having a different antenna pattern.”
However, Moorti discloses the missing feature “which provide a plurality of signal paths… and determines signal path quality of the plurality of signal paths.” ([para 0058]: “Referring to FIG. 8, at 801, a signal quality metric may be determined for each of a plurality of signal paths.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Armstrong, Nixon, and Moorti to modify the technique as disclosed by Armstrong, and determine signal quality for each path as disclosed by Moorti. The motivation for doing so is that allows use of the best path, thus improving quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Armstrong with Nixon and Moorti to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Armstrong in view of Nixon and Moorti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Armstrong further discloses “wherein the plurality of RF transceivers is used to improve communication range, reliability, and power consumption by creating parallel streams of data with different path lengths and/or though different nodes of a mesh network.” ([para 0015]: “In various embodiments, the PWAP may be configured to communicate with the field communicator using any suitable type of wireless communications, such as Wi-Fi, BLUETOOTH, radio frequency identification (RFID), near field communications (NFC), infrared communications, etc., while communicating with one or more devices within the plant automation network using an industrial plant automation communication protocol, such as WirelessHART and/or the International Society of Automation (ISA) 100.11a Standard.”)
Regarding claim 4, Armstrong in view of Nixon and Moorti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Armstrong further discloses “wherein the plurality of RF transceivers communicate using different communication protocols.” ([para 0015]: “In various embodiments, the PWAP may be configured to communicate with the field communicator using any suitable type of wireless communications, such as Wi-Fi, BLUETOOTH, radio frequency identification (RFID), near field communications (NFC), infrared communications, etc., while communicating with one or more devices within the plant automation network using an industrial plant automation communication protocol, such as WirelessHART and/or the International Society of Automation (ISA) 100.11a Standard.”)
Regarding claim 5, Armstrong in view of Nixon and Moorti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Armstrong further discloses “wherein one transceiver is used to communicate information related to the process variable and another transceiver is used to communicate configuration information.” ([para 0015]: “In various embodiments, the PWAP may be configured to communicate with the field communicator using any suitable type of wireless communications, such as Wi-Fi, BLUETOOTH, radio frequency identification (RFID), near field communications (NFC), infrared communications, etc., while communicating with one or more devices within the plant automation network using an industrial plant automation communication protocol, such as WirelessHART and/or the International Society of Automation (ISA) 100.11a Standard.”)
Regarding claim 6, Armstrong in view of Nixon and Moorti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Armstrong further discloses “wherein one transceiver is used to communicate information related to the process variable and another transceiver is used to communicate diagnostic information.” ([para 0015]: “In various embodiments, the PWAP may be configured to communicate with the field communicator using any suitable type of wireless communications, such as Wi-Fi, BLUETOOTH, radio frequency identification (RFID), near field communications (NFC), infrared communications, etc., while communicating with one or more devices within the plant automation network using an industrial plant automation communication protocol, such as WirelessHART and/or the International Society of Automation (ISA) 100.11a Standard.” ; [para 0016]: “In various embodiments, the PWAP may also facilitate the field communicator performing various functions regarding one or more plant devices connected to the plant automation network, such as updating plant device firmware and/or software, performing calibration, diagnostics, loop checkouts, etc.”)
Regarding claim 7, Armstrong in view of Nixon and Moorti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Armstrong further discloses “wherein one transceiver is used to communicate information related to the process variable and another transceiver is used to communicate device firmware.” ([para 0015]: “In various embodiments, the PWAP may be configured to communicate with the field communicator using any suitable type of wireless communications, such as Wi-Fi, BLUETOOTH, radio frequency identification (RFID), near field communications (NFC), infrared communications, etc., while communicating with one or more devices within the plant automation network using an industrial plant automation communication protocol, such as WirelessHART and/or the International Society of Automation (ISA) 100.11a Standard.” ; [para 0016]: “In various embodiments, the PWAP may also facilitate the field communicator performing various functions regarding one or more plant devices connected to the plant automation network, such as updating plant device firmware and/or software, performing calibration, diagnostics, loop checkouts, etc.”)
Regarding claim 8, Armstrong in view of Nixon and Moorti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Armstrong further discloses “wherein the plurality of transceivers are used to independently assess the health of connections between neighboring field nodes.” ([para 0016]: “In various embodiments, the PWAP may also facilitate the field communicator performing various functions regarding one or more plant devices connected to the plant automation network, such as updating plant device firmware and/or software, performing calibration, diagnostics, loop checkouts, etc.”)
Regarding claim 13, Armstrong in view of Nixon and Moorti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Armstrong further discloses “wherein one of the plurality of transceivers is configured to communicate with a local configuration device.” ([para 0028]: “Plant communication network 200 also includes a plant wireless access point (PWAP) 224, which facilitates wireless communications between field communicator 216 (operated by user 218) and wired network 240 via wireless gateway 212.”)
Regarding claim 14, Armstrong in view of Nixon and Moorti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Armstrong further discloses “wherein one of the plurality of transceivers is configured to communicate with another wireless industrial process field device.” ([para 0028]: “PWAP also facilitates wireless communications between field communicator 216 and one or more field devices 214.1-214.i, which may or may not utilize wireless gateway 212 to communicate with wired network 240.”)
Regarding claim 16, Armstrong in view of Nixon and Moorti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Armstrong further discloses “wherein the plurality of transceivers are configured to communicate on different frequencies.” ([para 0015]: “In various embodiments, the PWAP may be configured to communicate with the field communicator using any suitable type of wireless communications, such as Wi-Fi, BLUETOOTH, radio frequency identification (RFID), near field communications (NFC), infrared communications, etc., while communicating with one or more devices within the plant automation network using an industrial plant automation communication protocol, such as WirelessHART and/or the International Society of Automation (ISA) 100.11a Standard.”)
Regarding claim 17, Armstrong in view of Nixon and Moorti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Armstrong further discloses “wherein the plurality of transceivers are configured to provide redundant communication paths.” ([para 0015]: “In various embodiments, the PWAP may be configured to communicate with the field communicator using any suitable type of wireless communications, such as Wi-Fi, BLUETOOTH, radio frequency identification (RFID), near field communications (NFC), infrared communications, etc., while communicating with one or more devices within the plant automation network using an industrial plant automation communication protocol, such as WirelessHART and/or the International Society of Automation (ISA) 100.11a Standard.”)
Regarding claim 18, Armstrong in view of Nixon and Moorti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Armstrong further discloses “wherein one of the plurality of transceivers is configured to communicate with a configuration device which includes a display which displays a schematic representation of a plurality of wireless industrial field devices in an industrial process.” ([para 0063]: “User 218 may use a workstation running such an application to determine a location of each field device 214 and PWAP 224 within a plant based on a plant bitmap.”)
Regarding claim 19, Armstrong in view of Nixon and Moorti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Armstrong further discloses “including a metal housing and an RF transparent end cap.” ([para 0005]: “Because the electronic connectors used to facilitate wired communications need to be protected from conditions in a plant environment, the electronic connectors are often protected by a cover, such as an end cap, for example, that may be removed to provide a user appropriate access for a wired connection.” Wherein metal housing is taught by Moorti as disclosed in relation to claim 12.)
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong (US 20160100437 A1) in view of Nixon (US 20200387147 A1), Moorti (US 20130230087 A1), and further in view of Caratelli (US 20150236428 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Armstrong in view of Nixon and Moorti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Armstrong does not explicitly disclose “wherein the plurality of RF transceivers is used to increase the data transmission capacity.”
However, Caratelli discloses the missing feature “wherein the plurality of RF transceivers is used to increase the data transmission capacity.” ([para 0051]: “It is one of several forms of smart antenna technology. MIMO technology has attracted attention in wireless communications, because it offers significant increase in data throughput, channel capacity and link range without additional bandwidth or increase transmitted power.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Armstrong, Nixon, Moorti, and Caratelli to use the technique as disclosed by Armstrong, and increase throughput as disclosed by Caratelli. The motivation for doing so is that it increases performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Armstrong with Nixon, Moorti, and Caratelli to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 9 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong (US 20160100437 A1) in view of Nixon (US 20200387147 A1), Moorti (US 20130230087 A1), and further in view of Kolodziej (US 20220094512 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Armstrong in view of Nixon and Moorti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Armstrong does not explicitly disclose “wherein the plurality of transceivers are used to conduct diagnostics by transmission of a test signal by one transceiver which is received by one or more other transceivers in order to conduct a health assessment of the signal path and perform a relative comparison between transceivers and between current performance and a stored performance signature.”
However, Kolodziej discloses the missing feature “wherein the plurality of transceivers are used to conduct diagnostics by transmission of a test signal by one transceiver which is received by one or more other transceivers in order to conduct a health assessment of the signal path and perform a relative comparison between transceivers and between current performance and a stored performance signature.” ([para 0119]: “Referring to FIG. 7, a process 700 for tuning an SI canceller begins by determining (e.g. choosing, computing or otherwise determining) starting values for the SI canceller coefficients in box 702. The starting coefficients (e.g. coefficients w.sub.Q and w.sub.I mentioned above) may be randomly determined, determined based on experimental results, or determined based on past performance. Using the starting coefficients, the SI canceller 106 may cancel SI during transmission and reception of signals in box 704.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Armstrong, Nixon, Moorti, and Kolodziej to modify the technique as disclosed by Armstrong, to have health assessment as disclosed by Kolodziej. The motivation for doing so is that it decreases interference and thus increases performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Armstrong with Nixon, Moorti, and Kolodziej to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, Armstrong in view of Nixon and Moorti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Armstrong does not explicitly disclose “wherein one of the plurality of transceivers is configured to dynamically sense RF characteristics of the environment.”
However, Kolodziej discloses the missing feature “wherein one of the plurality of transceivers is configured to dynamically sense RF characteristics of the environment.” ([para 0119]: “Referring to FIG. 7, a process 700 for tuning an SI canceller begins by determining (e.g. choosing, computing or otherwise determining) starting values for the SI canceller coefficients in box 702. The starting coefficients (e.g. coefficients w.sub.Q and w.sub.I mentioned above) may be randomly determined, determined based on experimental results, or determined based on past performance. Using the starting coefficients, the SI canceller 106 may cancel SI during transmission and reception of signals in box 704.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Armstrong, Nixon, Moorti, and Kolodziej to modify the technique as disclosed by Armstrong, to have RF characteristic sensing as disclosed by Kolodziej. The motivation for doing so is that it decreases interference and thus increases performance. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Armstrong with Nixon, Moorti, and Kolodziej to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 10, 12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong (US 20160100437 A1) in view of Nixon (US 20200387147 A1), Moorti (US 20130230087 A1), and further in view of Shin (US 20160118710 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Armstrong in view of Nixon and Moorti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Armstrong also does not disclose “wherein the plurality of transceivers are carried on a shared circuit board substrate with the supporting antennas.”
However, Shin discloses the missing feature ““wherein the plurality of transceivers are carried on a shared circuit board substrate with the supporting antennas.” ([para 0102]: “The ground part may be formed on a printed circuit board (PCB).” See ground part 514 in Fig. 5A.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Armstrong, Nixon, Moorti, and Shin to modify the antennas as disclosed by Armstrong, and have different antenna patterns as disclosed by Shin. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Armstrong with Nixon, Moorti, and Shin to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 12, Armstrong in view of Nixon and Moorti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Armstrong also does not disclose “wherein the plurality of antennas are positioned outside of a metal housing.”
However, Shin discloses the missing feature “wherein the plurality of antennas are positioned outside of a metal housing.” ([para 0091-0093]: “Referring to FIG. 4, the electronic device 400 includes housings 401 403, and 405, extension parts 406-409, an antenna 410, and a ground part 420… The first housing 401, the second housing 403, and the third housing 405 may be metal housings.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Armstrong, Nixon, Moorti, and Shin to modify the antennas as disclosed by Armstrong, and be outside metal housing as disclosed by Shin. The motivation for doing so is that it prevents performance degradation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Armstrong with Nixon, Moorti, and Shin to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 20, Armstrong in view of Nixon and Moorti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Armstrong does not disclose “wherein the plurality of antenna patterns are used to form an antenna array pattern.”
However, Shin discloses the missing feature “wherein the plurality of antenna patterns are used to form an antenna array pattern.” ([para 0078]: “The antenna array 330 (e.g., 248 of FIG. 2) may include a plurality of antenna elements 332, 334, 336, and 338 disposed to form a directional beam. The antenna elements may be formed on a first surface of the printed circuit board 310 as illustrated.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Armstrong, Nixon, Moorti and Shin to modify the antennas as disclosed by Armstrong, and have different antenna patterns as disclosed by Shin. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Armstrong with Nixon, Moorti, and Shin to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Armstrong (US 20160100437 A1) in view of Nixon (US 20200387147 A1), Moorti (US 20130230087 A1), and further in view of Luecke (US 20150180963 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Armstrong in view of Nixon and Moorti discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Armstrong does not explicitly disclose “wherein the plurality of transceivers employ a voting scheme to determine the best communication parameters to use to ensure data reliability.”
However, Luecke discloses the missing feature “wherein the plurality of transceivers employ a voting scheme to determine the best communication parameters to use to ensure data reliability.” ([para 0162]: “For example, the pathway selection engine 566 can be configured via the optimization parameter configuration module 564 to provide an array of pathways and corresponding upload/download speeds (e.g., "Denver Edge node: 7284, CDN: 3905, Direct: 5932"), the best pathway by upload/download speed (e.g., "Denver Edge node"), the best pathway by votes (e.g., "CDN"), and the like in response to a request for an upload/download pathway.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Armstrong, Nixon, Moorti, and Luecke to modify the technique as disclosed by Armstrong, and implement a voting scheme as disclosed by Luecke. The motivation for doing so is that it increases reliability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Armstrong with Nixon, Moorti, and Luecke to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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 Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412