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 .
Introduction
This is a response to the applicant’s filing filed on 09/27/2023. In virtue of this filing, claims 1-21 are currently presented in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 09/27/2023 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Drawings
The drawing submitted on 09/27/2023 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Specification
The specification submitted on 09/27/2023 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 1-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 4-12 and 15-21 of U.S. Patent No.: 11,818,697. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-21 in the current application have the same scope of claimed inventions with obvious wording variations.
Current application Patent No.: 11,818,697
Claims 1-3 equivalent Claim 1
Claim 4 equivalent Claim 4
Claim 5 equivalent Claim 5
Claim 6 equivalent Claim 6
Claim 7 equivalent Claim 7
Claim 8 equivalent Claim 8
Claim 9 equivalent Claim 9
Claim 10 equivalent Claim 10
Claims 11 and 12-14 equivalent Claim 11
Claim 12 equivalent Claim 12
Claim 15 equivalent Claim 15
Claim 16 equivalent Claim 16
Claim 17 equivalent Claim 17
Claim 18 equivalent Claim 18
Claim 19 equivalent Claim 19
Claim 20 equivalent Claim 20
Claim 21 equivalent Claim 21
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, 3-4, 6-7, 9-11, 14-15, 17-18 and 20-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamath et al. (US Patent No.: 10,750,573, hereinafter, “Kamath”) in view of Crow (US Patent No.: 6,643,509).
Regarding claims 1 and 11, Kamath teaches a system comprising:
a plurality for sectors (see piconet A, piconet B), wherein each sector is installed with an apparatus designed to increase the number of communication channels in a critical mission wireless communication (BLE Bluetooth low energy) system installed in a confined area (piconet) (see figures 1 and 7, master 3-1, plurality of slaves 5-1 to 5-5, col.1, ln.53-65), wherein each apparatus includes:
a transmitter configured to transmit radio signals at standard frequency band, a standard frequency band defined by a critical mission wireless communication protocol of the critical mission wireless communication system (see figures 1 and 7, master 3-1, BLE transceiver 25-1, plurality of slaves 5-1 to 5-5, col.1, ln.55-65, col.2, ln.1-20); and
a plurality of receivers, wherein each plurality of receivers is wirelessly connected to the transmitter and configured to receive signals at standard frequency band transmitted by the transmitter and processed signals at the standard frequency, wherein the plurality of receivers and the transmitter are part of the critical mission wireless communication system (see figures 1 and 7, master 3-1, BLE transceiver 25-2, plurality of slaves 5-1 to 5-5, col.1, ln.55-65, col.2, ln.1-20).
It should be noticed that Kamath fails to teach a transmitter configured to transmit radio signals at a first frequency band, wherein the first frequency band is higher than a second frequency band; and a receiver, wherein receiver is wirelessly connected to the transmitter and configured to receive signals at the first frequency band transmitted by the transmitter and processed signals at the second frequency band. However, Crow teaches a transmitter configured to transmit satellite signals at a first frequency band, wherein the first frequency band is higher than a second frequency band; and a receiver, wherein receiver is wirelessly connected to the transmitter and configured to receive signals at the first frequency band transmitted by the transmitter and processed signals at the second frequency band (see figures 1, 4-5, satellite 12, satellite ground station 14, Gnd to Sat receiver 136, C to L converter 138, C band is 5.0 GHz to 5.5 GHz, L band is 1GHz to 2 GHz, col.2, ln. 33-42). (It appear to examiner that select the frequency band would depend more upon the choice of the manufacturer and the choice of engineering, than on any inventive concept).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Crow into view of Kamath in order to offers numerous practical and performance benefits, primarily related to easier and more efficient signal processing, filtering, and amplification.
Regarding claims 3 and 14, after combine, Kamath teaches standard frequency band defined by a critical mission wireless communication protocol of the critical mission wireless communication system (see figures 1 and 7, BLE protocol, col.1, ln.55-65, col.2, ln.1-20). Crow further teaches the receiver is further configured to: down-convert received wireless signals from the first frequency band to the second frequency band (see figures 1, 4-5, satellite 12, satellite ground station 14, Gnd to Sat receiver 136, C to L converter 138, C band is 5.0 GHz to 5.5 GHz, L band is 1GHz to 2 GHz, col.2, ln. 33-42).
Regarding claims 4 and 15, Kamath further teaches standard frequency band defined by a critical mission wireless communication protocol of the critical mission wireless communication system (see figures 1 and 7, BLE protocol, col.1, ln.55-65, col.2, ln.1-20).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, after combine, Kamath teaches the standard frequency band is the 2.4GHz frequency band (BLE protocol, col.1, ln.55-65, col.2, ln.1-20). Grow teaches the first frequency band is at least 5GHz frequency band (see figures 1, 4-5, satellite 12, satellite ground station 14, Gnd to Sat receiver 136, C band is 5.0 GHz to 5.5 GHz).
Regarding claims 7 and 18, Kamath further teaches the wireless communication standard is the Bluetooth Low Energy (BLE) standard, and wherein the standard frequency band is defined by the BLE standard (see BLE, col.1, ln.55-65).
Regarding claims 9 and 20, Kamath further teaches the critical mission wireless communication system operates in a master-slave star topology and wherein each of the plurality receivers is a slave device and wherein the transmitter is a master device (see figures 1 and 7, master 3-1, BLE transceiver 25-1, plurality of slaves 5-1 to 5-5, col.1, ln.55-65, col.2, ln.1-20).
Regarding claims 10 and 21, Kamath further teaches each of the master device and the slave device is a transceiver (see figures 7-8, master transceiver 25-1, slave transceiver 25-2).
Claim(s) 2 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamath et al. (US Patent No.: 10,750,573, hereinafter, “Kamath”) in view of Crow (US Patent No.: 6,643,509) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Ammar (US Pub. No.: 2006/0160500).
Regarding claims 2 and 13, Kamath teaches Kamath the standard frequency (BLE). Crow teaches first frequency (C-Band). Kamath and Crow, in combination, fails to teach up-convert wireless signals from the standard frequency to the first frequency band. However, Ammar teaches up-convert from the L-Band to the Ka-Band (see [0004, 0006], examiner use the teaching of up-converting from low band to high band for transmitting).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Ammar into view of Kamath and Crow in order to offers numerous practical and performance benefits, primarily related to easier and more efficient signal processing, filtering, and amplification.
Claim(s) 5, 8, 12, 16 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamath et al. (US Patent No.: 10,750,573, hereinafter, “Kamath”) in view of Crow (US Patent No.: 6,643,509) as applied to claims 1 and 11 above, and further in view of Rentschler et al. (US Pub. No.: 2019/0238397, hereinafter, “Rentschler”).
Regarding claims 5 and 16, Kamath teaches Kamath the standard frequency (BLE). Kamath and Crow, in combination, fails to teach the wireless communication standard is the I0-Link Wireless standard, and wherein the standard frequency band is defined by the I0-Link Wireless standard. However, Rentschler teaches the wireless radio is the I0-Link Wireless standard, and wherein the radio is defined by the I0-Link Wireless standard (see figure 1, [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Rentschler into view of Kamath and Crow in order to operation in short range.
Regarding claims 8, 12 and 19, Kamath, Crow and Rentschler, in combination, fails to teach the plurality of receivers, and the transmitter are deployed in a sector of a production line. Examiner, however, takes Official Notice that such features are well known in the art of telecommunications.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of claims 8, 12 and 19 into view of Kamath, Crow and Rentschler in order to operation in short range.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan A. Pham whose telephone number is (571) 272-8097, the fax number is (571) 273-8097 and the email is tuan.pham01@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday, 8:30 AM-5:30 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, Yuwen (Kevin) Pan can be reached on (571) 272-7855. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TUAN PHAM/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649