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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-16 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ergen (2021/0409976, of record) inview of Soro et al. (2019/0349929, of record) [Soro], Ibrahim et al. (2024/0113833, of record) [Ibrahim], and Lysejko et al. (2016/0380353) [Lysejko].
Regarding claims 1, 15, and 16, Ergen discloses a control apparatus comprising: a control part configured to determine a channel selection order in frequency hopping (console application paragraph 0036);
a transmitter configured to transmit transmission data at a frequency corresponding to a selected channel selected based on the selection order (push mechanism, paragraph 0037); and
a receiver configured to receive, in response to the transmission, reception data from a communication target device at a frequency corresponding to the selected channel, wherein the reception data includes radio field strength information on a measurement channel of a measurement target that is a channel used for the frequency hopping (paragraphs 0038, 0045, and 0048).
Ergen fails to disclose a manipulator including a manipulation element for changing a posture of a communication target device with control information for controlling the posture of the communication target device included in the transmission data, the channel selection order is a channel hopping pattern specified in a code included the reception data and transmission data, and the determination is among a plurality of channels designated in valid information included in the transmission data.
In an analogous art, Soro teaches it was common practice in the art at the time of effective filing to specify valid channels in a transmission prior to performing channel scanning (paragraph 0084) for the conventional benefit of expediting the scanning process to be limited to a list of designated valid channels.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the control apparatus of Ergen to include the determination is among a plurality of channels designated in valid information included in the transmission data, as suggested by Soro, for the benefit of expediting the scanning process to be limited to a list of designated valid channels.
Ergen and Soro fail to disclose a manipulator including a manipulation element for changing a posture of a communication target device with control information for controlling the posture of the communication target device included in the transmission data, and the channel selection order is a channel hopping pattern specified in a code included the reception data and transmission data.
In an analogous art, Ibrahim teaches it was common practice in the art at the time of effective filing to specify a channel hopping pattern with a code in communications between devices (control signaling, paragraphs 0150, 0179, 0216) for the conventional benefit of avoiding signal collision and interference over a network.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the control apparatus of Ergen and Soro to include utilizing a channel hopping pattern specified in a code included the reception data and transmission data, as suggested by Ibrahim, for the conventional benefit of avoiding signal collision and interference over a network.
Ergen, Soro, and Ibrahim fail to disclose a manipulator including a manipulation element for changing a posture of a communication target device with control information for controlling the posture of the communication target device included in the transmission data.
In an analogous art, Lysejko teaches it was common practice in the art at the time of effective filing to include a manipulator including a manipulation element for changing a posture of a communication target device with control information for controlling the posture of the communication target device included in transmission data (rotational positioning of an antenna, paragraph 0028) for the conventional benefit of improving signal reception via dynamic repositioning of an antenna.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the control apparatus of Ergen, Soro, and Ibrahim to include a manipulator including a manipulation element for changing a posture of a communication target device with control information for controlling the posture of the communication target device included in the transmission data, as suggested by Lysejko, for the conventional benefit of improving signal reception via dynamic repositioning of an antenna.
Regarding claim 2, Ergen, Soro, Ibrahim, and Lysejko disclose the control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reception data received by the receiver includes telemetry information on the communication target device and the radio field strength information (target device is a client device, Ergen paragraphs 0038 and 0045).
Regarding claim 3, Ergen, Soro, Ibrahim, and Lysejko disclose the control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reception data includes a radio field strength information measured after the transmission corresponding to the reception (Ergen, paragraphs 0045 and 0048).
Regarding claim 4, Ergen, Soro, Ibrahim, and Lysejko disclose the control apparatus of claim 3, wherein the measurement channel is the current selected channel (measures across spectrum, Ergen paragraphs 0038 and 0045).
Regarding claim 5, Ergen, Soro, Ibrahim, and Lysejko disclose the control apparatus of claim 3, wherein the measurement channel is a channel other than the current selected channel (measures across spectrum, Ergen paragraphs 0038 and 0045).
Regarding claim 6, Ergen, Soro, Ibrahim, and Lysejko discloses the control apparatus of claim 5, wherein the measurement channel is a channel to be selected after the current selected channel (measures across spectrum, Ergen paragraphs 0038 and 0045).
Regarding claim 7, Ergen, Soro, Ibrahim, and Lysejko disclose the control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control part determines whether or not to invalidate the measurement channel where the radio field strength information is measured based on the radio field strength information, and selects a channel other than the invalid channel determined to be invalid in the selection of the selected channel (determining a channel is not "clean", Ergen paragraph 0111).
Regarding claim 8, Ergen, Soro, Ibrahim, and Lysejko disclose the control apparatus of claim 7, wherein the control part determines whether or not to validate the invalid channel when the reception data including the radio field strength information on the invalid channel is received again (determining a channel is not "clean", Ergen paragraph 0111).
Regarding claim 9, Ergen, Soro, Ibrahim, and Lysejko disclose the control apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a display part configured to present information based on the radio field strength information (indication of signal/channel characteristics, Ergen paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 10, Ergen, Soro, Ibrahim, and Lysejko disclose the control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control part calculates an interference wave intensity for the measurement channel based on the radio field strength information (interference detected by Al model, Ergen paragraphs 0028 and 0045).
Regarding claim 11, Ergen, Soro, Ibrahim, and Lysejko disclose the control apparatus of claim 10, wherein the control part performs a warning process depending on a calculated degree of interference (indication of signal/channel characteristics, Ergen paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 12, Ergen, Soro, Ibrahim, and Lysejko disclose the control apparatus of claim 11, wherein the control part sets a warning condition by manipulation of the manipulator, and performs the warning process corresponding to the warning condition (indication of signal/channel characteristics, Ergen paragraph 0036).
Regarding claim 13, Ergen, Soro, Ibrahim, and Lysejko disclose the control apparatus of claim 11, wherein the control part determines whether or not to invalidate the measurement channel where the radio field strength information is measured based on the radio field strength information (Ergen, paragraph 0045), and executes the warning process when the number of invalid channels determined to be invalid by the determination is greater than or equal to a predetermined number (Ergen paragraph 0056).
Regarding claim 14, Ergen, Soro, Ibrahim, and Lysejko disclose the control apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reception data includes information on the selected channel in addition to the radio field strength information on the measurement channel (Ergen paragraph 0045).
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 DOMINIC D SALTARELLI whose telephone number is (571)272-7302. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:00 pm 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, Nathan Flynn can be reached at (571) 272-1915. 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.
/DOMINIC D SALTARELLI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2421
Prosecution Insights