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 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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 requires “the Wi-Fi router to convert the optical signal into a Wi-Fi signal.” However, the specification as originally filed does not support this limitation. As shown in Fig. 2 submitted by the Applicant, the Wi-Fi router corresponds to the wireless router 216. The figure further shows that the wireless router 216 is connected to the small form-factor pluggable (SFP) media converter 218. The SFP media converter 218 corresponds to a second transducer. As its name indicates, a transducer is a device that converts energy from one form to another. Para. 45 of the specification states, “the indoor unit 102 may include a SFP converter 218a (such as a media converter or the like) to decode and/or translate optical signals 120 received from the optical coupler 202a to interior Wi-Fi signals 118 (such as representative of media files) and/or signals (such as representative of media files) prior to delivering to the wireless router 216.” In other words, optical signal is transmitted and received between the two transducers or the two SFP converters 218a and 212a, and the two SFP converters convert optical signals into electrical signals. Consequently, the Wi-Fi router receives an electrical signal generated by the transducer rather than an optical signal directly. As a result, the Wi-Fi router cannot convert the optical signal into a Wi-Fi signal as required by Claim 1. Therefore, the specification fails to provide written description support for the claim limitation.
The dependent claims 2-8 are rejected for being dependent on the rejected claim 1.
Claim 9 requires “a Wi-Fi router to convert the optical signals into a Wi-Fi signals.” However, the specification as originally filed does not support this limitation. As shown in Fig. 2 submitted by the Applicant, the Wi-Fi router corresponds to the wireless router 216. The figure further shows that the wireless router 216 is connected to the small form-factor pluggable (SFP) media converter 218. The SFP media converter 218 corresponds to a second transducer. As its name indicates, a transducer is a device that converts energy from one form to another. Para. 45 of the specification states, “the indoor unit 102 may include a SFP converter 218a (such as a media converter or the like) to decode and/or translate optical signals 120 received from the optical coupler 202a to interior Wi-Fi signals 118 (such as representative of media files) and/or signals (such as representative of media files) prior to delivering to the wireless router 216.” In other words, optical signal is transmitted and received between the two transducers or the two SFP converters 218a and 212a, and the two SFP converters convert optical signals into electrical signals. Consequently, the Wi-Fi router receives an electrical signal generated by the transducer rather than an optical signal directly. As a result, the Wi-Fi router cannot convert the optical signal into a Wi-Fi signal as required by Claim 1. Therefore, the specification fails to provide written description support for the claim limitation.
The dependent claims 10-16 are rejected for being dependent on the rejected claim 9.
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.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Au (US10277331B1) in view of Jamison et al. (US11546498B2) and Horie et al. (US6807396B2).
Regarding claim 17, Au discloses An indoor unit of a barrier mounted terminal system (Fig. 3B; the second unit 212 mounted on window) comprising:
an antenna (Fig. 3B; the antenna 312) for sending and receiving wireless signals associated with a user equipment (Fig. 3B; The antenna 312 sends/receives the RF signal to/from a UE 104), wherein the wireless signals are based at least in part on radio frequency (RF) signals from a remote beam forming antenna unit (RBFA) of the barrier mounted terminal system (Fig. 3B; the RF signal received from the base station 102 is relayed through optical signal communicated between the laser diode 304 and the optical receiver 306 to the antenna 312 and to the UE 104 as shown); and
a first transducer in electronic communication (Fig. 3B; the optical receiver 306. A transducer is a device that converts energy from one form to another. The optical receiver 306 converts an optical signal into an electrical signal) and optical communication with an outdoor unit of the barrier mounted terminal system (Fig. 3B; Column 7, lines 46-50; The second unit 212 includes an optical receiver 306 to receive modulated laser signals, which provides a modulating current to a RF signal source 308 to convert the modulated laser signal back into a modulated RF signal. The laser diode 304 and the optical receiver is physically aligned through the window as shown. The first unit 210 is the a point of entry and exit (or gateway) that connects a larger network through base station 102).
However, the present system does not expressly disclose Wi-Fi router to decode the Wi-Fi signals.
Jamison et al. discloses Wi-Fi router (Fig. 4; the Wifi access point 73) to decode the Wi-Fi signals (Fig. 4; Column 8, lines 48-53; The first location station 62 comprises an Ethernet Router 73 or the like that enables connection of the first location station with a Wifi network to provide the Wifi access point at Point A to enable the transmission and receipt of wireless information between the first connection station 62 and the user control devices 72).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add Wi-Fi router. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to provide wireless connection to multiple user devices creating a wireless network.
However, the present combination still lacks satellite.
Horie et al. discloses satellite (Fig. 2; Column 3, lines 14-19; FIG. 2 is a block diagram showing the general aspects of a receiving antenna system. The receiving antenna system is configured to receive and process RF signals transmitted from a communications satellite).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to receive signals from a satellite. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because satellites can provide communication services to any location on Earth, making them ideal for connecting remote areas where terrestrial infrastructure is difficult or impossible to deploy. Furthermore, it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claim apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations (Ex Parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987)).
Regarding claim 18, the present combination discloses The indoor unit of claim 17, as described and applied above, further comprising a power supply (Au, Fig. 3B; the power supply 332) coupled to a power source (Au, Fig. 3B; the power supply 332 is plugged into AC outlet) and a wireless power transmitter (Au, Fig. 3B; the inductive charging mechanism 328), the wireless power transmitter to generate a wireless charging signal (Au, Fig. 3B; Column 9, line 9-16; the indoor unit, e.g., the second unit 212, of the penetrator device 200 may include an inductive charging mechanism 328 to provide energy to an inductive charging mechanism 330 included within the first unit 210 so that plugging in a power supply 332 of the first unit 210 into an AC power outlet will also provide power to a power supply 334, e.g., a battery, of the first unit 210 to thereby keep both units 210, 212 operating).
Regarding claim 19, the present combination discloses The indoor unit of claim 17, as described and applied above, further comprising an adhesive for coupling the indoor unit to an interior surface of a window (Au, Fig. 2A; Column 7, lines 9-12; a first unit 210 and a second unit 212 of the penetrator device 200 are affixed to opposite sides, e.g., planes of glass 206, 208, of the thermal pane window 202 using an adhesive 214).
Regarding claim 20, the present combination discloses The indoor unit of claim 17, as described and applied above, further comprising a second transducer (Au, Fig. 3B; the laser diode 316) in electronic communication with the Wi-Fi router (Jamison et al., Fig. 4; the Wifi access point 73) and optical communication with the outdoor unit of the barrier mounted satellite terminal system (Au, Fig. 3B; the optical receiver 318 receives the modulated laser signal as shown).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JAI M LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-5870. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:5:30 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, Kenneth Vanderpuye can be reached at 571-272-3078. 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.
JAI M. LEE
Examiner
Art Unit 2634
/JAI M LEE/Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights