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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on February 28, 2024 has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: first communication unit, second communication unit, and control unit in claims 1-3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Upon reviewing the application it was found that the specification discloses first and second communications units as follow:
[0042] The first communication unit 22 includes one or more antennas 24 and communicates with the base station apparatus 30. For example, the first communication unit 22 communicates with the base station apparatus 30 in a first cell 31 provided by the base station apparatus 30.
[0043] The second communication unit 23 includes one or more antennas 25 and communicates with the base station apparatus. The second communication unit 23 communicates with the base station apparatus 30 in the second cell 32 provided by the base station apparatus 30.
Several paragraphs mentions “control unit”, for example paragraph [0029] recites “a control unit 17,” however, there appears to be no disclosure of the structure of the “control unit.”
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.
Claims 1-3 and 5 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant's specification discusses a “control unit” at least in paragraph [0029] associated with FIG. 2. Several other paragraphs also mention operations of the control unit. However, these paragraphs do not describe any structure for the “control unit”.
Claims 2, 3 and 5 are rejected as being dependent upon claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the Applicant regards as the invention.
Claim elements, “control unit” in claims 1, 3 and 5 are elements that invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for the claimed function, thus these claims are indefinite.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler et al. (US 10,187,501, “Butler”) in view of Kim et al. (US 2019/0034859, “Kim”).
Regarding claim 1, Butler teaches a wireless fixed-line phone router (FIG. 6, col 11, ln 38-48 -“ruggedized voice and data communication system 12-1 may be provided with the ruggedized enclosure 30”) to which at least a wireless fixed-line phone is connected (FIG. 6 shoes “Port Interface” 42-2 connected to a “Telephone Set” 22-1. Col 3, ln 20-23 - “The ruggedized voice and data communications system may be compatible with any analog wired or cordless desk or wall telephone”), the wireless fixed-line phone router comprising:
a first communication unit that performs communication according to a first mobile communication standard (FIG. 6, Transceiver 40-3 of communication board 32-2. Col 12, ln 22-25 “The communications board 32-2 may include a third transceiver 40-3 configured to receive and transmit signals through the antenna 38. The third transceiver 40-3 may be capable of functioning on both GSM and CDMA cellular networks”);
a second communication unit that performs communication according to a second mobile communication standard that is a mobile communication standard different from the first mobile communication standard (FIG. 6, Transceiver 40-1 of communication board 32-1. Col 12, ln 13-15 “the first transceiver 40-1 may be a GSM transceiver capable of transmitting and/or receiving packetized voice and data transmissions over a GSM network, for example”) {and is capable of performing communication in a wider range than the first mobile communication standard}; and
a control unit that causes the second communication unit to perform communication in a case where communication quality deteriorates when the first communication unit performs communication (col 12, ln 57-67 - “the communication board 32-2 has the ability to provide either a CDMA or a GSM connection to a network, the communications board 32-2 may serve as the primary network connection. The failover process may be initiated by the communication board 32-1 such that the third transceiver 40-3 of the communications board 32-2 serves as the primary network connection, and if the communications board 32-2 fails to provide the network connection, the first transceiver 40-1 of the communication board 32-1 may automatically provide the network connection on a GSM network, for example.” Col 13, ln 27-44 – “If network connectivity is deemed insufficient (e.g., signal strength below a predetermined level, bandwidth below a predetermined level), the communications board 32-1 may seek to utilize connectivity via first transceiver 40-1 of the communications board 32-1”).
Butler does not teach second communication unit… is capable of performing communication in a wider range than the first mobile communication standard. However, the Examiner submits that such feature is well known in the art. Many cellular communication technologies including mentioned GSM and CDMA can be configured to communicate over longer or shorter distances depending on network needs. CDMA can be configured to be longer than GSM and vice versa. For example Kim ([0032]) discloses “the second protocol may be a wide area network protocol for transmitting messages over long distance such as 0.5 miles, 5 miles, or 25 miles. Examples of cellular or satellite network communication protocols include code division multiple access (CDMA), wideband CDMA (WCDMA), global system for mobiles (GSM), or long-term evolution (LTE)”. According to Kim, in one of the cases, a CDMA network may transmit messages over 0.5 miles, while a GSM network may do so over 25 miles. Clearly, GSM network is capable of performing communication in a wider range than the CDMA communication standard.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the feature second communication unit… is capable of performing communication in a wider range than the first mobile communication standard, as suggested by Kim in Butler to allow communication with a GSM network when other networks are not configured with enough range thereby reducing communication interruption.
Regarding claim 4, Butler teaches a communication control method performed by a wireless fixed-line phone router (FIG. 6, col 11, ln 38-48 -“ruggedized voice and data communication system 12-1 may be provided with the ruggedized enclosure 30”) to which at least a wireless fixed-line phone is connected (FIG. 6 shoes “Port Interface” 42-2 connected to a “Telephone Set” 22-1. Col 3, ln 20-23 - “The ruggedized voice and data communications system may be compatible with any analog wired or cordless desk or wall telephone”), the communication control method comprising:
performing communication according to a first mobile communication standard (FIG. 6, Transceiver 40-3 of communication board 32-2. Col 12, ln 22-25 “The communications board 32-2 may include a third transceiver 40-3 configured to receive and transmit signals through the antenna 38. The third transceiver 40-3 may be capable of functioning on both GSM and CDMA cellular networks”);
performing communication according to a second mobile communication standard that is a mobile communication standard different from the first mobile communication standard (FIG. 6, Transceiver 40-1 of communication board 32-1. Col 12, ln 13-15 “the first transceiver 40-1 may be a GSM transceiver capable of transmitting and/or receiving packetized voice and data transmissions over a GSM network, for example”) {and is capable of performing communication in a wider range than the first mobile communication standard}; and
causing communication to be performed according to the second mobile communication standard in a case where communication quality deteriorates when communication is performed according to the first mobile communication standard (col 12, ln 57-67 - “the communication board 32-2 has the ability to provide either a CDMA or a GSM connection to a network, the communications board 32-2 may serve as the primary network connection. The failover process may be initiated by the communication board 32-1 such that the third transceiver 40-3 of the communications board 32-2 serves as the primary network connection, and if the communications board 32-2 fails to provide the network connection, the first transceiver 40-1 of the communication board 32-1 may automatically provide the network connection on a GSM network, for example.” Col 13, ln 27-44 – “If network connectivity is deemed insufficient (e.g., signal strength below a predetermined level, bandwidth below a predetermined level), the communications board 32-1 may seek to utilize connectivity via first transceiver 40-1 of the communications board 32-1”).
Butler does not teach second communication unit… is capable of performing communication in a wider range than the first mobile communication standard. However, the Examiner submits that such feature is well known in the art. Many cellular communication technologies including mentioned GSM and CDMA can be configured to communicate over longer or shorter distances depending on needs. CDMA can be configured to be longer than GSM and vice versa. For example Kim ([0032]) discloses “the second protocol may be a wide area network protocol for transmitting messages over long distance such as 0.5 miles, 5 miles, or 25 miles. Examples of cellular or satellite network communication protocols include code division multiple access (CDMA), wideband CDMA (WCDMA), global system for mobiles (GSM), or long-term evolution (LTE).”
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the feature second communication unit… is capable of performing communication in a wider range than the first mobile communication standard, as suggested by Kim in Butler to allow communication with a GSM network when other networks are not configured with enough range thereby reducing communication interruption.
Regarding claim 5, Butler in view of Kim teaches claim 1 and further teaches non-transitory computer-readable medium having computer-executable instructions that, upon execution of the instructions by a processor of a computer, cause the computer to function as the wireless fixed-line phone router according to claim 1 (col 13, ln 11-18 “instructions when executed by one or more processors of the communications board 32-1”. It is understood, at least a memory is included for the processor to perform the instructions.)
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butler in view of Kim and further in view of Kubosawa (US 2002/0183062).
Regarding claim 2, Butler in view of Kim teaches claim 1 but fails to teach wherein the control unit compares information of communication quality obtained in a first area where communication according to the first mobile communication standard is possible with information of communication quality obtained in a second area where communication according to the second mobile communication standard is possible, and determines which of the first communication unit and the second communication unit performs communication.
Kubosawa teaches wherein the control unit compares information of communication quality obtained in a first area where communication according to the first mobile communication standard is possible with information of communication quality obtained in a second area where communication according to the second mobile communication standard is possible, and determines which of the first communication unit and the second communication unit performs communication ([0008] “For example, in case that a user of a mobile communication terminal started to call by selecting the GSM communication system, when the communication quality of the GSM communication system became a value being lower than a designated value and the communication quality of the CDMA communication system became a value being higher than the designated value, the handover, from the GSM communication system to the CDMA communication system, is executed without informing the user of the mobile communication terminal about the handover. On the contrary, in case that a user of a mobile communication terminal started to call by selecting the CDMA communication system, when the communication quality of the CDMA communication system became a value being lower than a designated value and the communication quality of the GSM communication system became a value being higher than the designated value, the handover, from the CDMA communication system to the GSM communication system, is executed without informing the user of the mobile communication terminal about the handover”).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the feature wherein the control unit compares information of communication quality obtained in a first area where communication according to the first mobile communication standard is possible with information of communication quality obtained in a second area where communication according to the second mobile communication standard is possible, and determines which of the first communication unit and the second communication unit performs communication, as taught by Kubosawa in Butler provide highest communication quality possible.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 includes allowable subject matter but is indicated as being rejected due to “112” issue indicated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUOC THAI NGOC VU whose telephone number is (571)270-5901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Rafael Perez-Gutierrez can be reached at 571-272-7915. 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.
/QUOC THAI N VU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642