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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 03/26/2024. Claims 1 – 13 are pending in this application.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith).
Regarding claim 1, Smith teaches “A positioning method (shown in FIG 31 with corresponding description) comprising:
receiving, by a first device (Par. 0308: receiving, by a device AD 3103 a location query response 3109), a first receive-transmit time difference…” “…of a second device (device ED(x) 3101), wherein the first receive-transmit time difference is a time difference between receiving time of a first reference signal and sending time of a second reference signal (Par. 0308 – 0309: the location query response 3109 includes information identifying the time difference (“the first receive-transmit time difference”) between when ED(x) 3101 received the location query request 3107 (“a first reference signal” as applied specifically with respect to device ED(x) 3101) and when ED(x) 3101 transmitted the location query response 3109 (“sending time of a second reference signal” as applied specifically with respect to device ED(x) 3101).), the first reference signal is a reference signal of the first device received by the second device (Par. 0308: AD 3103 sends a location query request 3107 for position updates to ED(x) 3101.), the second reference signal is a reference signal sent by the second device (Par. 0308: ED(x) 3101 sends a location query response 3109)…”
“…determining a location of the first device (Par. 0307: FIG. 31 illustrates communication and information flows in a system configured to determine the range between two devices) based on the first receive-transmit time difference…” “…and a second receive-transmit time difference (See FIG 31: Range 1X=[T1(a)-T1(b)-(Tx(a)-Tx(b)]/2, where “the first receive-transmit time difference” is represented by (Tx(a)-Tx(b)), and “a second receive-transmit time difference” is represented by T1(a)-T1(b)), wherein the second receive-transmit time difference is a time difference between receiving time of a third reference signal and sending time of a fourth reference signal (Par. 0309: AD 3103 may record the time that it sent the location query request 3107 (“a fourth reference signal” as applied specifically with respect to device AD 3103).), record the time it received the location query response 3109 from ED(x) 3101 (“a third reference signal” as applied specifically with respect to device AD 3103).), and use this information to determine a total time delay.), the third reference signal is a reference signal of the second device received by the first device (Par. 0308: ED(x) 3101 sends a location query response 3109), and the fourth reference signal is a reference signal sent by the first device (Par. 0308: AD 3103 sends a location query request 3107).”
Smith does not disclose in the description that “a displacement vector” of the second device is also received by the first device, wherein “the displacement vector of the second device is a displacement of the second device in a time period corresponding to the first receive-transmit time difference” and that the determination of the location of the first device is also based on “the displacement vector of the second device”.
However, Smith in paragraph 0309 teaches that the location query response 3109 may also include location information and/or any other information requested via the location query request 3107. Additionally, in FIG 31 Smith suggests that if AD or ED(x) is traveling at high rate of speed, may need to address the delay in ED(x) processing the request. This means that the device ED(x) may shift in space between reception of the query request 3107 and transmission of the query response 3109, which needs to be addressed in calculations.
On the other side, in a different embodiments of FIG 26 with corresponding description, Smith teaches an example system 2600 that includes two mobile devices 102, 2601 that are configured to collaborate to determine their respective locations with a high degree of accuracy. The first mobile device 2601 may be configured to determine/compute its location at various times (e.g., at t=t−1; t=0; etc.), and provide this location information (INFO A) to the second mobile device 102. The second mobile device 102 may generate location information (INFO B), use the received location information (INFO A) to determine, compute, or generate more precise location information (INFO B′). Paragraph 0284: communications between the mobile devices 102, 2601 occur at time t=0 (this includes ranging), and the location of a device at time t=0 may be represented as (0,0). In other words, during the process of ranging, the device 2601 moves along the vector “A L0” representing the distance 2603 that the first mobile device 2601 travels or moves between times t=t−1 and t=0. Paragraph 0285: Vector AB (−1,0) represents sounding data (i.e., ranging) that is established between the mobile devices at time t=t−1. Vector AB (0,0) represents sounding data for time t=0. These two vectors may be adjusted to account for the relative differences in values for either the first mobile device 2601 (A), the second mobile device 102 (B), or for both devices. Paragraph 0286: due to the ranging information between A and B at both t=−1 and t=0, at least points A(t−1) and A(t=0) are known to the mobile device 102 after the communication exchange at time t=0. This information is used to determine location of the device 102.
In other words, vector A L0 representing the distance 2603 that the first mobile device 2601 travels or moves between times t=t−1 and t=0 may correspond to the “displacement vector of a second device” of instant claim, and since this location information is provided to the device 102 as INFO A (thus corresponding to claimed “receiving, by a first device” “a displacement vector of a second device”) to be used in location determination for the device 102, this corresponds to “determining a location of the first device based on” “the displacement vector of the second device”.
Therefore, since Smith in FIG 31 explicitly states that in case ED(x) is traveling at high rate of speed, the delay in ED(x) processing the request needs to be addressed since the device ED(x) may shift in space between reception of the query request 3107 and transmission of the query response 3109, and the solution of FIG 26 addresses relative movement of the devices during location determination, to combine the teaching of FIG 26 of transmission of movement vector of the second device to the first device to be used in location determination, into the method of FIG 31, so that the device ED(x) would transmit, within the query response 3109, to the device AD, information on its movement vector between reception of the query request 3107 and transmission of the query response 3109, to be used by the device AD in its location determination. Doing so would have allowed to determine the location of the device AD more accurately (see Smith, paragraph 0281).
Regarding claim 7, this claim is for a method performed by a second device which is reciprocal to the method of claim 1 performed by a first device.
In the rejection of claim 1 above, it was shown that the disclosure of Smith teaches or at least fairly suggests all steps of the method of claim 1. Therefore, the disclosure of Smith also teaches or at least fairly suggest all steps of the method of claim 7. For complete explanation please see the rejection of claim 1 above, which is incorporated herein by reference.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20210311203 (Reis).
Regarding claim 2, while generally suggesting in FIG 31 that if AD or ED(x) is traveling at high rate of speed, may need to address the delay in ED(x) processing the request, Smith does not explicitly teach “determining the location of the first device based on a displacement vector of the first device, wherein the displacement vector of the first device is a displacement of the first device in a time period corresponding to the second receive-transmit time difference.”
Reis in FIG 13 and paragraph 0112 also teaches a ranging method between two devices in which mobile device 230 transmits a message 1320a from a first location “A” towards a communication satellite 210. While the radio message is in flight, the mobile device moves from location “A” to location “B”. When the mobile device arrives at location “B” it receives the response signal 1320b from the satellite. Paragraph 0113 further states that the determined location using the messages would not be accurate, and to determine the exact location of the device when it receives the response message, the method may fuse (combine) the estimated traveled distance during the message flight time with the average location “C”.
In other words, Reis teaches “determining the location of the first device (mobile device 230 in FIG 13) based on a displacement vector of the first device, wherein the displacement vector of the first device is a displacement of the first device in a time period corresponding to the second receive-transmit time difference (paragraph 0113: the estimated traveled distance during the message flight time).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application, based on suggestion of Smith as explained above, to utilize disclosed by Reis estimated traveled distance of the first device during the message flight time, in the method of Smith shown in FIG 31. Doing so would have resulted in a more accurate location determination of the first device.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of EP 2437549 (Feki) (submitted by the Applicant).
Regarding claim 3, Smith teaches “wherein the location of the first device is in a first area (implicit: the location of the first device is always going to be in some kind of area)…”
Smith does not teach that “a shape of the first area is an ellipsoid or an ellipse, two focal points of the first area are head and tail endpoints of a first vector, a length of a major axis of the first area is a distance corresponding to a sum of the second receive-transmit time difference and the first receive-transmit time difference, and the first vector is a sum of the displacement vector of the first device and the displacement vector of the second device.”
Feki in FIG 3 and paragraphs 0051 – 0052 teaches that “the location of the first device is in a first area; and a shape of the first area is an ellipsoid or an ellipse (a service area SAt in the form of an ellipse. A current position of the mobile radio communication terminal corresponds to the center of the ellipse, the direction of the long axis may be roughly parallel to the current direction (defined by the direction vector Ai,t-1Ai,t) of the mobile radio communication terminal's trajectory.)…”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to define the area of the location of Smith’s first device as an ellipse, as disclosed by Feki, simply as design choice with predictable results since the claim does not require this shape to be used for any purpose.
With respect to specific requirements for the two focal points and the length of a major axis, the claim does not require these values, or the shape itself, to be used for any purpose, nor does it require determination of any of these values as part of the method. Therefore, these requirements are treated simply as arbitrary. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to assign any numerical values to the parameters of the ellipse, including those specified by the claim, simply as design choice with predictable results, the results being specific dimensions and shape of the ellipse.
Additionally or alternatively, the limitations of the claim merely amount to a statement of intended use or environment in which the device is used and thus this recitation does not have to be given patentable weight. “[a]n intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” See Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Elaborating on that, as the MPEP in 2111.02(II) states, during examination, statements reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim.
Now considering the claim, there would be absolutely no difference in the operation of the method of claim 1, as claimed regardless of the particular characteristics of the shape of the area in which the first device is located.
Claims 3 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20230087450 (YERRAMALLI).
Regarding claim 3, Smith teaches “wherein the location of the first device is in a first area (implicit: the location of the first device is always going to be in some kind of area)…”
Smith does not teach that “a shape of the first area is an ellipsoid or an ellipse, two focal points of the first area are head and tail endpoints of a first vector, a length of a major axis of the first area is a distance corresponding to a sum of the second receive-transmit time difference and the first receive-transmit time difference, and the first vector is a sum of the displacement vector of the first device and the displacement vector of the second device.”
YERRAMALLI in FIG 4 and 5 with corresponding description teaches that “the location of the first device is in a first area; and a shape of the first area is an ellipsoid or an ellipse (in FIG 4, the user device 105, corresponding to “the first device” of instant claim, is located at the intersection of ellipses 402 and 404, each of which corresponds to “the first area”. In FIG 5, the user device 105 is located at the border of ellipse 508)…”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to define the area of the location of Smith’s first device as an ellipse, as disclosed by YERRAMALLI, simply as design choice with predictable results since the claim does not require this shape to be used for any purpose.
With respect to specific requirements for the two focal points and the length of a major axis, the claim does not require these values, or the shape itself, to be used for any purpose, nor does it require determination of any of these values as part of the method. Therefore, these requirements are treated simply as arbitrary. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to assign any numerical values to the parameters of the ellipse, including those specified by the claim, simply as design choice with predictable results, the results being specific dimensions and shape of the ellipse.
Additionally or alternatively, the limitations of the claim merely amount to a statement of intended use or environment in which the device is used and thus this recitation does not have to be given patentable weight. “[a]n intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” See Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Elaborating on that, as the MPEP in 2111.02(II) states, during examination, statements reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim.
Now considering the claim, there would be absolutely no difference in the operation of the method of claim 1, as claimed regardless of the particular characteristics of the shape of the area in which the first device is located.
Regarding claim 4, Smith does not teach “wherein when there are N second devices, where N is an integer greater than 1, each second device corresponds to one second area, and the location of the first device is at an intersection point of the N second areas; and a shape of an ith second area corresponding to an ith second device in the N second devices is an ellipsoid or an ellipse, two focal points of the ith second area are head and tail endpoints of a second vector, a length of a major axis of the ith second area is a distance corresponding to a sum of the second receive-transmit time difference and a first receive-transmit time difference of the ith second device, and the second vector is a sum of the displacement vector of the first device and a displacement vector of the ith second device, wherein i is a positive integer, and i≤N.”
First of all, the statement “when there are N second devices…” appears to be a conditional statement, therefore, everything following this statement is contingent upon the condition being fulfilled. Since Smith discloses only a single “second device” in the methods of FIG 26 and 31, there is no requirement to show that these limitations are also disclosed or made obvious by Smith. As stated in MPEP 2111.04(II), The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. Analyzing the claimed method as a whole, giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016). Therefore, there is no need to present evidence of the obviousness of the method steps of claim 4 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim.
Additionally or alternatively, YERRAMALLI in FIG 4 with corresponding description starting with paragraph 0131 teaches determining the position of the user equipment 105 (corresponds to “the first device” of instant claim). YERRAMALLI teaches “wherein when there are N second devices (represented by RP1 113a and RP2 113b), where N is an integer greater than 1 (N=2 in FIG 4), each second device corresponds to one second area (ellipses 402 and 404 corresponding to RP1 113a and RP2 113b, respectively), and the location of the first device is at an intersection point of the N second areas (location of the user device 105 is shown at the intersection of ellipses 402 and 404); and
a shape of an ith second area corresponding to an ith second device in the N second devices is an ellipsoid or an ellipse (ellipses 402 and 404 corresponding to RP1 113a and RP2 113b, respectively)…”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by YERRAMALLI method of using plurality of second devices to determine exact location of the user equipment, in the system of Smith. Doing so would have allowed the UE 105 to generate multiple Rx−Tx time difference measurements thus improving reliability and accuracy of position determination (based on YERRAMALLI, paragraph 0140).
With respect to specific requirements for the two focal points of each “second area” and the length of a major axis, the claim does not require actual determination of any of these values as part of the method. Therefore, these requirements are treated simply as arbitrary. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to assign any numerical values to the parameters of the ellipse, including those specified by the claim, simply as design choice with predictable results, the results being specific dimensions and shape of the ellipse.
Additionally or alternatively, the limitations of the claim merely amount to a statement of intended use or environment in which the device is used and thus this recitation does not have to be given patentable weight. “[a]n intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” See Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
Elaborating on that, as the MPEP in 2111.02(II) states, during examination, statements reciting the purpose or intended use of the claimed invention must be evaluated to determine whether or not the recited purpose or intended use results in a structural difference (or, in the case of process claims, manipulative difference) between the claimed invention and the prior art. If so, the recitation serves to limit the claim.
Now considering the claim, there would be absolutely no difference in the operation of the method of claim 1, as claimed regardless of the particular characteristics of the shape of each of the “second area”.
Regarding claim 5, Smith does not teach “wherein the location of the first device is determined based on at least one of the first area and an angle of arrival of the first reference signal or the first area and an angle of arrival of the third reference signal.”
YERRAMALLI in FIG 5 and at least in paragraphs 0149 and 0207 teaches determining the position of the user equipment 105 (corresponds to “the first device” of instant claim) based on ellipse 508 (corresponds to “the first area” of instant claim) and angle of arrival θ shown with respect to transmission of the reference signal between the user equipment 105 and RP1 113a (RP1 113a corresponding to “the second device of parent claim 1, and the angle of arrival θ of the reference signal corresponding to “at least one of” “an angle of arrival of the first reference signal or” “and an angle of arrival of the third reference signal”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by YERRAMALLI angle of arrival of the reference signal at one of the communicating devices, in the system of Smith. Doing so would have allowed to more accurately determine position of the device.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20200267683 (Edge).
Regarding claim 6, Smith does not teach “wherein the first receive-transmit time difference is a value obtained by performing a modulo operation of the difference between the receiving time of the first reference signal and the sending time of the second reference signal mod a first value; and
the second receive-transmit time difference is a value obtained by performing a modulo operation of the receiving time of the third reference signal and the sending time of the fourth reference signal mod the first value.”
In similar art of distance determination, Edge in FIG 4 with corresponding description teaches “the first receive-transmit time difference is a value obtained by performing a modulo operation of the difference between the receiving time of the first reference signal and the sending time of the second reference signal mod a first value (shown in FIG 4 as denoting (T mod 1 ms) as [T], and arriving at [Rx1-Tx0]); and
the second receive-transmit time difference is a value obtained by performing a modulo operation of the receiving time of the third reference signal and the sending time of the fourth reference signal mod the first value (shown in FIG 4 as [Rx0-Tx1]).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Edge usage of modulo operation in determination of the received-transmit time differences, in the system of Smith simply as design choice with predictable results since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) in view of US 20220244344 (Bao).
Regarding claim 8, Smith teaches “A positioning method (shown in FIG 31 with corresponding description) comprising…”
“…a second receive-transmit time difference of a first device, wherein the second receive-transmit time difference is a time difference between receiving time of a third reference signal and sending time of a fourth reference signal, the third reference signal is a reference signal of a second device received by the first device, and the fourth reference signal is a reference signal sent by the first device;
receiving a first receive-transmit time difference of the second device and a displacement vector of the second device, wherein the first receive-transmit time difference is a time difference between receiving time of a first reference signal and sending time of a second reference signal, the first reference signal is a reference signal of the first device received by the second device, the second reference signal is a reference signal sent by the second device, and the displacement vector of the second device is a displacement of the second device in a time period corresponding to the first receive-transmit time difference; and
determining a location of the first device based on the first receive-transmit time difference, the displacement vector of the second device, and the second receive-transmit time difference (the limitations above are rejected in view of Smith as explained in the rejection of similar limitations of claim 1 above, the explanations being incorporated herein by reference).
Smith does not teach that all the receiving is performed “by a third device”.
In the disclosure of Smith, there are only two devices cooperating with each other to determine a location of one of the devices. The location of the device is determined by the device itself. So the difference between the disclosure of Smith and instant claim is that in the instant claim the raw data is received by an additional device, while in Smith, there is no additional devices.
In similar art, Bao also discloses location determination – see FIG 6 with corresponding description. Paragraph 0095: the UEs 105 and 106 may be configured to perform sidelink assisted positioning by transmitting and/or receiving SL-PRS and reporting to the location server 120. Paragraphs 0107 – 0108: At stage 11, one or both of the UEs 105 and 106 may transmit SL-PRS. As illustrated in FIG. 6, UE1 105 transmits SL-PRS to UE2 106 and UE2 106 transmits SL-PRS to UE1 105. This corresponds to the “reference signals” of instant claim. At stages 12A and 12B, UE1 105 and UE2 106, respectively measure the received SL-PRS transmitted at stage 11. The measurements may be timing based measurements, such as Rx-Tx, etc. Paragraphs 0109 – 0110: At stage 13, UE1 105 transmits a positioning information report to the location server 120 that includes the positioning measurements obtained in stages 10A and 12A. At stage 14, UE2 106 transmits a positioning information report to the location server 120 that includes the positioning measurements obtained in stages 10B and 12B. Paragraph 0112: at stage 16, the location server 120 determines the locations of UE1 105 and UE2 106 based on the measurement responses received at stages 13, 14 and 15.
In this case, the UE1 105 corresponds to the claimed “a first device”, the UE2 106 corresponds to the claimed “a second device”, and the location server 120 corresponds to the claimed “a third device”, so that the “third device” receives all information specified by the claim from both the first and the second devices and performs location determination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Bao usage of a location server to receive all raw information from the devices measuring the distance between them, in the system of Smith. Doing so would have allowed to determine position of both devices at a centralized place, such as location server.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) in view of US 20220244344 (Bao) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 20210311203 (Reis).
Regarding claim 9, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 because they have similar limitations.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) in view of US 20220244344 (Bao) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of EP 2437549 (Feki).
Regarding claim 10, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 3 in section 8 above because they have similar limitations.
Claims 10 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) in view of US 20220244344 (Bao) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 20230087450 (YERRAMALLI).
Regarding claims 10 – 12, these claims are rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claims 3 – 5, respectively, in section 9 above because they have similar limitations.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) in view of US 20220244344 (Bao) and EP 2437549 (Feki) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 20230087450 (YERRAMALLI).
Regarding claim 12, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5 because they have similar limitations.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20160127871 (Smith) in view of US 20220244344 (Bao) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of US 20200267683 (Edge).
Regarding claim 13, this claim is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 6 because they have similar limitations.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648