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 Amendment
The amendment filed April 27, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1 and 8 have been amended, and claims 7 and 12-13 have been canceled. The objection to claim 12 is now moot. Claims 1-6, 8-11, and 14-20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed April 27, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant contends that Weible fails to disclose a transceiver interface for configuring and/or reconfiguring at least one transceiver, wherein the transceiver interface comprises a connection unit for providing a wireless mobile and/or internet connection. Applicant argues that the mobile transceiver interface of Weible is not intended to provide its own wireless and/or internet connection for configuring the transceiver, and instead relies on a connection to an external device.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The connection unit of Weible (communication unit 82) provides a wireless mobile connection (e.g. infrared, WLAN, radio, NFC, wireless USB, or Bluetooth; see pg. 5, paragraph 3) to an exernal mobile device (external device 86). External device 86 can control the transceiver interface to configure the transceiver by means of the wireless connection (see pg. 12, paragraph 3). Examiner agrees that the transceiver interface disclosed in Weible does not provide internet connection independently of an external device. However, claim 1 does not require that the connection unit provide independent internet connection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 5-6, 8, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Weible et al. (DE 10-2016-115-546 A1), hereinafter Weible.
Regarding claim 1, Weible discloses a mobile transceiver interface (interface unit 10), which is designed for the configuration and/or reconfiguration of at least one transceiver (see Abstract), comprising:
at least one transceiver slot (contact elements 50, 52, 54, 56, 58, and 60) designed for connecting a pluggable transceiver (transceiver modules 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, and 34; see pg. 11, second full paragraph),
a housing unit (device housing 48) that has a receiving space (see annotated Fig. 9 below) for receiving at least a large portion of the transceiver (24, 26, 28, 30, 32, and 34) in the transceiver slot (50, 52, 54, 56, 58, and 60) in a plugged-in state of the transceiver (see paragraph spanning pgs. 3-4 stating that an insertion depth of the transceiver modules into the device housing may be up to 45% of the extension length of the transceiver modules), and
a connection unit (communication unit 82) for providing a wireless mobile and/or internet connection (communication unit 82 provides a wireless connection to external mobile device 86; see pg. 5, paragraphs 3 and pg. 12, paragraph 3), wherein the connection unit (82) is designed to provide the mobile and/or internet connection for configuring the transceiver (see pg. 6, paragraph 3 and pg. 12, paragraph 3 stating that the external mobile device is intended to control the transceiver interface).
PNG
media_image1.png
293
547
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Weible teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Weible further teaches the transceiver interface according to claim 1, wherein an insertion opening of the transceiver slot faces the receiving space (see annotated Fig. 9 above).
Regarding claim 5, Weible teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Weible further teaches the transceiver interface according to claim 1, further comprising a fixing unit (holding unit 76 and holding element 80) for the force-fitting and/or positive-locking fixing of an external mobile device to the housing unit (see paragraph spanning pgs. 10-11, stating that the holding unit is intended to hold an external device, such as a smartphone, and may additionally include clamping elements).
Regarding claim 6, Weible teaches all of the limitations of claim 5 as stated above. Weible further teaches the transceiver interface according to claim 5, wherein the fixing unit (76 and 80) includes at least one magnetic element for providing a magnetic fixation (see paragraph spanning pgs. 10-11, stating that the holding unit may include magnetic holding elements).
Regarding claim 8, Weible teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Weible further teaches the transceiver interface according to claim 1, wherein the fixing unit (76 and 80) includes at least one magnetic element for providing a magnetic fixation (see paragraph spanning pgs. 10-11, stating that the holding unit may include magnetic holding elements).
Regarding claim 19, Weible teaches a transceiver system (system 85) comprising:
a transceiver interface according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above); and
at least the transceiver (24, 26, 28, 30, 32, and 34).
Regarding claim 20, Weible teaches all of the limitations of claim 19 above. Weible further teaches the transceiver system according to claim 19, further comprising at least one serial interface (connection interface 94) for providing a serial connection between the transceiver interface (10) and a data transmission unit (see pg. 8, last paragraph, stating that the connection interface may be used as a data interface to an external device).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weible as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Mizuta et al. (JP 2006-190584 A), hereinafter Mizuta.
Weible teaches all of the limitations of claim 2 as stated above. Weible further teaches the transceiver interface according to claim 2, wherein the housing unit (48) has at least one feed-through opening (transceiver slots 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, and 22) for feeding the transceiver (24, 26, 28, 30, 32, and 34) through to the transceiver slot (50, 52, 54, 56, 58, and 60). Weible lacks the teaching that the feed-through opening is arranged at an opposite end of the housing unit to the insertion opening of the transceiver slot.
Mizuta teaches a transceiver interface (transceiver interface conversion adapter 40) including a feed-through opening (transceiver insertion port 69) arranged at an opposite end of the transceiver interface (40) to an insertion opening of a transceiver slot (electrical interface 64).
Mizuta is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the transceiver interface taught by Weible so that the insertion opening is disposed at an opposite end of the housing unit to the feed-through opening. Doing so would allow more of the transceiver to be accommodated within the housing unit, protecting the transceiver.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weible as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Prescott et al. (US 2018/0159620 A1).
Weible teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Weible does not teach that the transceiver interface comprises at least one sensor unit for sensing at least one temperature characteristic of at least the transceiver in a plugged-in state.
Prescott teaches a transceiver interface (network-enabled programmer 256 and 500) that includes a sensor unit for sensing a temperature characteristic of a transceiver (OPM 252) in a plugged-in state (see paragraph 0031, stating that the device retrieves an average operating temperature from the OPM).
Prescott is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the transceiver interface taught by Weible to include a temperature sensor for sensing a temperature characteristic of at least one transceiver. Doing so would allow a user to monitor the temperature of the transceiver during its programming.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weible as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Harney (US 2022/0300721 A1).
Weible teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Weible does not teach that the transceiver interface comprises a power transmission unit for the inductive provision of energy for at least one external mobile device.
Harney teaches a transceiver interface (RFID signal repeater system 300) that includes a power transmission unit (RF power repeater 400) for the inductive provision of energy for at least one external mobile device (phone or tablet 40; see paragraph 0293).
Harney is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the transceiver interface taught by Weible to include a power transmission unit to supply energy to an external mobile device. Doing so would allow a user of the transceiver interface to charge their phone or tablet.
Claims 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weible as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dehaan et al. (US 10,157,296 B2).
Regarding claim 16, Weible teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Weible does not teach that the housing unit in a plan view of a main extension plane of the housing unit has an at least substantially, at least pentagonal outer contour.
Dehaan discloses a transceiver interface (identifier device 12) with a housing unit that appears to have an at least substantially pentagonal outer contour (see Fig. 2).
Dehaan is considered to be analogous art because it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention. Weible discloses the claimed invention except that its outer contour is rectangular. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to make the outer contour pentagonal, since Applicant has not disclosed that this difference solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose; and it appears that the invention would perform equally well with an outer contour of any shape.
Regarding claim 17, Weible teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Weible does not teach that the transceiver interface includes a display unit for displaying at least an operating status and/or operating mode, which follows an outer contour of the housing unit, at least in sections.
Dehaan discloses a transceiver interface (12) that includes a display unit for displaying operating information (display 26) that follows a section of the device's outer contour ("outer contour" is not defined in the claim; depending on how the device in Dehaan is oriented, display 26 could reasonably be considered to be on its outer contour).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the transceiver interface taught by Weible to include a display unit on an outer contour so that a user may view operating information regarding the transceiver.
Regarding claim 18, Weible teaches all of the limitations of claim 1 as stated above. Weible does not teach that the transceiver interface comprises at least one user interface for interaction with a user.
Dehaan teaches a transceiver interface (12) that includes a user interface for interaction with a user (selection buttons 24 and touch screen display 26).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the present application, to modify the transceiver interface taught by Weible to include a user interface for interaction with a user. Doing so would allow a user to interact with a GUI to view information about the transceiver (see col. 3, lines 58-65).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-11 and 15 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 9, the prior art neither teaches nor suggests the limitation that “in a plugged-in state of the transceiver in the transceiver slot, the at least one further transceiver slot is blocked for connecting the further transceiver.”
Claims 10-11 depend on claim 9 and would therefore be allowable for at least the reasons stated above.
Regarding claim 15, the prior art neither teaches nor suggests that “the housing unit has at least one further receiving space for receiving at least a large portion of a further transceiver, which intersects with the receiving space in at least some sections.”
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 ROSS TERRY MULARSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-0284. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 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, Imani Hayman can be reached at (571)270-5528. 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.
/R.T.M./Examiner, Art Unit 2841 /IMANI N HAYMAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2841
Prosecution Insights