DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims
The following claim(s) is/are pending in this office action: 1-20
The following claim(s) is/are amended: 1, 18-19
The following claim(s) is/are cancelled: 21-25
The following claim(s) is/are new: -
Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected. This rejection is FINAL.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed in the amendment filed 3/23/2026, have been fully considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection. The reasons set forth below.
Applicant’s Invention as Claimed
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 is/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 limitation “antenna unit” invokes 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 performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The claims include both antenna units and signal blocking antenna units that perform functions other than simply sending or receiving data. For example, Claim 1 has a signal blocking antenna unit “to transmit a selected signal pattern in one or more communication channels for blocking communication to or from the respective antenna unit of the associated electronic device and to periodically change a transmission channel, according to predetermined, random, or pseudo-random pattern stored in said memory, to thereby block communication in a plurality of communication channels.” Because the claim claims functionality more than generic reception and transmission act of an antenna, the unit apparently includes specialized software for performing particular functions. However, the algorithm for performing the functions is not disclosed in the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
The above cited rejections are merely exemplary.
Claims not specifically mentioned are rejected by virtue of their dependency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 1-10, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US Pub. 2016/0233912) in view of Nguyen (US Pub. 2019/0268087).
With respect to Claim 1, Thomas teaches a data protection system for use with an associated electronic device including at least one of wi-fi, Bluetooth and NFC communication modules and respective one or more antenna units, (Fig. 1, para. 339; privacy/security enclosure that envelops a device that includes an RF transceiver that uses NFC. Para. 343; enclosure can stop WiFi and Bluetooth signals. Para. 442; enclosure prevents WiFi and Bluetooth signals. Para. 482; enclosure of a cell phone with Wifi/BT antennas.)
the data protection system comprising: one or more signal blocking antenna units arranged in a predetermined arrangement corresponding to an arrangement of the respective one or more antenna units of said associated electronic device; (para. 376; internal antenna. paras. 440-442; active attenuation using a RF jammer. Para. 445-446, 458; parasitic antenna/signals that is placed near the phone’s antenna. See also Nguyen, para. 31; user-specific jamming based on targeting a location temporally.)
and a control circuit; (para. 451; enclosure can be controlled to partially or fully disable communication in one or more frequencies. Interference can be turned off or on. Frequency selection can be used to control passage of frequencies.)
wherein: said one or more signal blocking antenna units are positioned to face respective one or more antenna units of said associated electronic device; (para. 442; blocking/interfering signal can be inside or outside of the privacy enclosure. Para. 481; internal facing antenna with Wifi and Bluetooth.)
But Thomas does not explicitly teach blocking on communication channels.
Nguyen, however, does teach comprising a signal generator, a controller, and a memory storing computer-readable instructions executable by the controller; (para. 38; jamming controller identifies channels used for communications and uses antenna to transmit jamming signals. Para. 44; jamming signal generated. Paras. 21-22; memory.)
and said control circuit is configured and operable to operate said one or more signal blocking antenna units to transmit a selected signal pattern in one or more communication channels for blocking communication to or from the respective antenna unit of the associated electronic device; (paras. 33, 37-38; system determines which channels to block and blocks those channels. para. 38; jamming controller jams identified channels using either a repeat attack signal or a noise signal, which are signal patterns.)
wherein said control is configured to signal said at least one signal blocking antenna unit for transmitting said selected signal pattern (para. 38; jamming controller jams identified channels using either a repeat attack signal or a noise signal, which are signal patterns.)
and to periodically change a transmission channel, according to a predetermined, random, or pseudo-random pattern stored in said memory, to thereby block communication in a plurality of communication channels. (paras. 4-5, 31-34; system defeats a frequency hopping signal by tracking the hopping and jamming the signal. Para. 5; Bluetooth hops 1600 times per second using a pseudo-random hopping pattern, which means the jammer would similarly hop at the same rate in a same pseudo-random pattern. Therefore, tracking and jamming a signal suggests a periodic change based on the hopping frequency. Paras. 1-5, 33, 37; rather than wide-band jamming, system identifies communication channels in use and jams on those particular channels, which is a predetermined or pseudo-random pattern for transmission. Para. 32; strategy decisions in software. Further, a person of ordinary skill would have recognized that one could simply jam using a standard frequency hopping protocol without being reactive to improve latency, see Nguyen, para. 5 and MPEP 2144.04(II)(A).)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of Thomas and the blocking in one or more communication channels in Nguyen in order to reduce power requirements by not having to block an entire band. (Nguyen, para. 2)
With respect to Claim 2, modified Thomas teaches the data protection system of claim 1, and Nguyen also teaches wherein said selected signal pattern comprises high frequency noise pattern. (para. 5, 10, 38-42; noise signal sent in Bluetooth, which is a high-frequency band.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 3, modified Thomas teaches the data protection system of claim 1, and Thomas also teaches wherein said electronic device comprises a Wi-Fi communication module comprising one or more wi-fi antenna units; (Fig. 1, para. 339; privacy/security enclosure that envelops a device that includes an RF transceiver that uses NFC. Para. 482; enclosure of a cell phone with Wifi/BT antennas.)
said at least one signal blocking antenna units comprise at least one wi-fi signal blocking antenna unit positioned to face respective one of said one or more wi-fi antenna units of the device; (para. 376; internal antenna. paras. 440-442; active attenuation using a RF jammer. Para. 442; blocking of Wifi signal.)
and Nguyen also teaches said control circuit is configured and operable to operate said at least one wi-fi signal blocking antenna unit for transmitting selected signal pattern in one or more wi-fi communication channels, thereby blocking wi-fi communication to and from said electronic device. (paras. 33, 37-38; system determines which channels to block and blocks those channels. para. 38; jamming controller jams identified channels using either a repeat attack signal or a noise signal, which are signal patterns.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 4, modified Thomas teaches the data protection system of claim 3, and Nguyen also teaches wherein said control circuit is configured to operate said at least one wi-fi signal blocking antenna unit for transmitting said selected signal pattern (para. 38; jamming controller jams identified channels using either a repeat attack signal or a noise signal, which are signal patterns.)
and for periodically changing transmission channel, to thereby block wi-fi communication in a plurality of communication channels. (paras. 4-5, 31-34; system defeats a frequency hopping signal by tracking the hopping and jamming the signal. Para. 5; Bluetooth hops 1600 times per second, which means the jammer would similarly hop at the same rate.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 5, modified Thomas teaches the data protection system of claim 1, and Thomas also teaches wherein said electronic device comprises a Bluetooth communication module comprising one or more Bluetooth antenna units; (Fig. 1, para. 339; privacy/security enclosure that envelops a device that includes an RF transceiver that uses NFC. Para. 482; enclosure of a cell phone with Wifi/BT antennas.)
said at least one signal blocking antenna units comprise at least one Bluetooth signal blocking antenna unit positioned to face respective one of said one or more Bluetooth antenna units of the device; (para. 376; internal antenna. paras. 440-442; active attenuation using a RF jammer. Para. 442; blocking of Bluetooth signal.)
and Nguyen also teaches said control circuit is configured and operable to operate said at least one Bluetooth signal blocking antenna unit for transmitting selected signal pattern in one or more Bluetooth communication channels, thereby blocking Bluetooth communication to and from said electronic device. (paras. 33, 37-38; system determines which channels to block and blocks those channels. para. 38; jamming controller jams identified channels using either a repeat attack signal or a noise signal, which are signal patterns.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 6, modified Thomas teaches the data protection system of claim 5, and Nguyen also teaches wherein said control circuit is configured to operate said at least one Bluetooth signal blocking antenna unit for transmitting said selected signal pattern (para. 38; jamming controller jams identified channels using either a repeat attack signal or a noise signal, which are signal patterns.)
and for periodically changing transmission channel, to thereby block Bluetooth communication in a plurality of communication channels. (paras. 4-5, 31-34; system defeats a frequency hopping signal by tracking the hopping and jamming the signal. Para. 5; Bluetooth hops 1600 times per second, which means the jammer would similarly hop at the same rate.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 7, modified Thomas teaches the data protection system of claim 1, and Thomas also teaches wherein said electronic device comprises a near field communication (NFC) module comprising one or more NFC antenna units; (Fig. 1, para. 339; privacy/security enclosure that envelops a device that includes an RF transceiver that uses NFC.)
said at least one signal blocking antenna units comprise at least one NFC signal blocking antenna unit positioned to face respective one of said one or more NFC antenna units of the device; (para. 376; internal antenna. paras. 440-442; active attenuation using a RF jammer. Para. 479, 912; selective blocking of NFC.)
and Nguyen also teaches said control circuit is configured and operable to operate said at least one NFC signal blocking antenna unit for transmitting selected signal pattern in one or more NFC channels, thereby blocking NFC communication to and from said electronic device. (paras. 33, 37-38; system determines which channels to block and blocks those channels. para. 38; jamming controller jams identified channels using either a repeat attack signal or a noise signal, which are signal patterns.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 8, modified Thomas teaches the data protection system of claim 7, and Nguyen also teaches wherein said control circuit is configured to operate said at least one NFC signal blocking antenna unit for transmitting said selected signal pattern (para. 38; jamming controller jams identified channels using either a repeat attack signal or a noise signal, which are signal patterns.)
and for periodically changing transmission channel, to thereby block NFC communication in a plurality of communication channels. (paras. 4-5, 31-34; system defeats a frequency hopping signal by tracking the hopping and jamming the signal. Para. 5; Bluetooth hops 1600 times per second, which means the jammer would similarly hop at the same rate.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 9, modified Thomas teaches the data protection system of claim 1, and Thomas also teaches wherein said electronic device comprises a positioning system communication module comprising one or more positioning system antenna units; (Fig. 1, para. 339; privacy/security enclosure that envelops a device that includes an RF transceiver. para. 442; interfering with GPS signals)
said at least one signal blocking antenna units comprise at least one positioning signal blocking antenna unit positioned to face respective one of said one or more positioning system antenna units of the device; (para. 376; internal antenna. paras. 440-442; active attenuation using a RF jammer. Para. 479, 912; selective blocking of NFC.)
and Nguyen also teaches said control circuit is configured and operable to operate said at least one positioning signal blocking antenna unit for transmitting selected signal pattern in one or more positioning system communication channels, thereby blocking positioning system communication to and from said electronic device. (paras. 33, 37-38; system determines which channels to block and blocks those channels. para. 38; jamming controller jams identified channels using either a repeat attack signal or a noise signal, which are signal patterns.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 10, modified Thomas teaches the data protection system of claim 9, and Nguyen also teaches wherein said control circuit is configured to operate said at least one positioning signal blocking antenna unit for transmitting said selected signal pattern (para. 38; jamming controller jams identified channels using either a repeat attack signal or a noise signal, which are signal patterns.)
and for periodically changing transmission channel, to thereby block positioning system communication in a plurality of communication channels. (paras. 4-5, 31-34; system defeats a frequency hopping signal by tracking the hopping and jamming the signal. Para. 5; Bluetooth hops 1600 times per second, which means the jammer would similarly hop at the same rate.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 12, modified Thomas teaches the data protection system of claim 1, and Nguyen also teaches wherein said selected signal pattern comprises variation in at least one of signal strength and signal frequency. (para. 44; jamming signal may be shifted in frequency to remain in the center of a band. See also Thomas, para. 451; variation in frequency.)
The same motivation to combine as the independent claim applies here.
With respect to Claim 13, modified Thomas teaches the data protection system of claim 1, and Thomas also teaches configured as a case for an electronic device. (para. 338; enclosure can be a chamber, cover, case or sleeve.)
With respect to Claim 14, modified Thomas teaches the data protection system of claim 13, and Thomas also teaches configured as a case for smartphone or tablet device. (para. 338; enclosure can be a chamber, cover, case or sleeve. Para. 339; devices protected can include a smartphone or tablet.)
With respect to Claim 15, modified Thomas teaches the data protection system of claim 13, and Thomas also teaches configured as a laptop cover. (para. 338; enclosure can be a chamber, cover, case or sleeve. Para. 339; devices protected can include a laptop.)
With respect to Claim 18, Thomas teaches an electronic device, comprising: one or more antenna units; (Fig. 1, para. 339; privacy/security enclosure that envelops a device that includes an RF transceiver that uses NFC.)
and a data protection system, the data protection system comprising one or more signal blocking antenna unit (Para. 343; enclosure can stop WiFi and Bluetooth signals. Para. 442; enclosure prevents WiFi and Bluetooth signals. Para. 482; enclosure of a cell phone with Wifi/BT antennas. para. 376; internal antenna. paras. 440-442; active attenuation using a RF jammer.)
and a control circuit; (para. 451; enclosure can be controlled to partially or fully disable communication in one or more frequencies. Interference can be turned off or on. Frequency selection can be used to control passage of frequencies.)
wherein: said one or more signal blocking antenna units are positioned to face respective one or more antenna units of said electronic device; (para. 442; blocking/interfering signal can be inside or outside of the privacy enclosure. Para. 481; internal facing antenna with Wifi and Bluetooth.)
But Thomas does not explicitly teach signal patterns.
Nguyen, however, does teach and said control circuit is configured and operable to operate said one or more signal blocking antenna units to transmit selected signal pattern for blocking communication to or from the respective antenna unit of the associated electronic device. (paras. 33, 37-38; system determines which channels to block and blocks those channels. para. 38; jamming controller jams identified channels using either a repeat attack signal or a noise signal, which are signal patterns.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the device of Thomas and the signal patterns in order to attenuate or amplify a communication as needed.
With respect to Claim 18, Thomas teaches a case for an electronic device, comprising one or more signal blocking antenna unit (Fig. 1, para. 339; privacy/security enclosure that envelops a device that includes an RF transceiver that uses NFC. Para. 343; enclosure can stop WiFi and Bluetooth signals. Para. 442; enclosure prevents WiFi and Bluetooth signals. Para. 482; enclosure of a cell phone with Wifi/BT antennas. para. 376; internal antenna. paras. 440-442; active attenuation using a RF jammer.)
and a control circuit; (para. 451; enclosure can be controlled to partially or fully disable communication in one or more frequencies. Interference can be turned off or on. Frequency selection can be used to control passage of frequencies.)
wherein: said one or more signal blocking antenna units are positioned to face respective one or more antenna units of said electronic device; (para. 442; blocking/interfering signal can be inside or outside of the privacy enclosure. Para. 481; internal facing antenna with Wifi and Bluetooth.)
But Thomas does not explicitly teach signal patterns.
Nguyen, however, does teach and said control circuit is configured and operable to operate said one or more signal blocking antenna units to transmit selected signal pattern for blocking communication to or from the respective antenna unit of the associated electronic device. (paras. 33, 37-38; system determines which channels to block and blocks those channels. para. 38; jamming controller jams identified channels using either a repeat attack signal or a noise signal, which are signal patterns.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the case of Thomas and the signal patterns in order to attenuate or amplify a communication as needed.
With respect to Claim 20, modified Thomas teaches the case of claim 19, and Thomas also teaches further comprising a power storage unit configured to provide electrical power to said one or more signal blocking antenna units and said control circuit. (para. 438; battery)
Claims 11 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas (US Pub. 2016/0233912) in view of Nguyen (US Pub. 2019/0268087), and further in view of Nordin (US Pub. 2012/0098664).
With respect to Claim 11, modified Thomas teaches the data protection system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach a flex printed circuit board antenna unit.
Nordin, however, does teach wherein said one or more signal blocking antenna units comprise one or more flex printed circuit board antenna units. (paras. 9, 42; flex printed board with antenna.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of modified Thomas and the flex printed circuit board antenna unit in order to allow for RFID functionality. (Nordin, para. 6)
With respect to Claim 17, modified Thomas teaches the data protection system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach an electronic circuit.
Nordin, however, does teach configured as an electronic circuit integrated in said electronic device. (paras. 9, 37, 43; integrated circuit with antenna.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of modified Thomas and the integrated electronic circuit in order to provide for a single device which could ensure privacy. Further, simple combination for predictable results is obvious, see MPEP 2143(I)(A).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Thomas (US Pub. 2016/0233912) in view of Nguyen (US Pub. 2019/0268087), and further in view of Harris (WO 02/33939 A2).
With respect to Claim 16, modified Thomas teaches the data protection system of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach an add-on.
Harris, however, does teach configured as an electronic module being an add-on for said electronic device. (pg. 6; jammer module attached using attachment clips.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of modified Thomas and the add-on to allow a user to affix the jammer to the device to allow for easier transportation of both.
Alternate Grounds
Claims 1-10, 12-15, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US Pub. 2016/0233912) in view of Nguyen (US Pub. 2019/0268087) and further in view of Kuhne (US Pub. 2018/0351690).
With respect to Claim 1, Thomas and Nguyen teach as above, but under this ground of rejection do not teach and to periodically change a transmission channel, according to a predetermined, random, or pseudo-random pattern.
Kuhne, however, does teach and to periodically change a transmission channel, according to a predetermined, random, or pseudo-random pattern. (paras. 4-7, 10-14, 18, 46, 78, 125-126; system jams a FHSS signal by determining a channel hop sequence and hop rate of an emitting device and jamming the channels.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date to combine the system of modified Thomas and the periodic changing of transmission channel to jam FHSS signals with reduced effort and reduced influence on other wireless signals. (Kuhne, paras. 19-22)
The same teaching would apply, mutatis mutandis, to all other claims.
Remarks
Applicant argues at Remarks, pgs. 7-8 that the claims should not be rejected under 112b in view of f. Applicant states “Applicant respectfully disagrees that the claims invoke 35 USC 112(b). Nevertheless, Applicant points out corresponding structure disclosed in the specification below.” Examiner assumes this is a typo that meant that Applicant disagrees that the claims invoke 112(f), but Applicant nevertheless asserts that the disclosure requirements for definiteness under 112(f) claiming have been met.
Examiner maintains the claims invoke 112(f) and maintains that the claims result in a 112(b) rejection given that they do. Applicant does not argue that the claims do not invoke 112(f). Therefore, the specification must disclose the structure for performing the claimed function. The structure for computer hardware performing a special (non-general purpose) function requires disclosure of the algorithm that causes the functionality to occur, see MPEP 2181(II)(B). Applicant argues in Numeral 1 (pg. 7) that the corresponding structure is disclosed and illustrated. Applicant points to Fig. 1, which does not more than identify where the antennas are positioned. Numeral 1 explicitly states the antennas are “driven by a control circuit.” Numeral 2 (pg. 8) states “the control circuit includes a signal generator [] and includes processor and memory to control signal generation and transmission and to provide variability including channel variability.” This is not an algorithm, it is a restatement of the functionality claimed in the claim, see Claim 1. (“said control circuit is configured and operable to operate said one or more signal blocking antenna units to transmit a selected signal pattern in one or more communication channels for blocking communication to or from the respective antenna unit [] and to periodically change a transmission channel”) Numeral 3 states that the channel switching algorithm is disclosed because “the specification describes periodically switching channels according to a predetermined, random, or pseudo random pattern, including with defined periodicity or pseudo periodicity.” This also is not an algorithm. This is a disclosure of an effective result of using an undisclosed algorithm. Examiner notes that the scope of “predetermined, random, or pseudo random” covers essentially all algorithms. The argument is akin to arguing that a processor with “appropriate programming” would describe the algorithm, but that disclosure is not sufficient. See MPEP 2181(II)(B) – “Mere reference to a general purpose computer with appropriate programming without providing an explanation of the appropriate programming, or simply reciting ‘software’ without providing detail about the means to accomplish a specific software function would not be an adequate disclosure of the corresponding structure to satisfy the requirements of 35 USC 112(b)…”
All antenna transmissions are performed either due to predetermined, random, or pseudo random patterns. Presumably, Applicant would not be happy if Examiner merely cited just an antenna to teach the entirety of the “said control circuit…” limitation. See, e.g., Remarks, pgs. 8-9 arguing Examiner’s citation of an antenna does not teach “according to a predetermined, random, or pseudo-random pattern.” Applicant specifically argues that the claims are different from Nguyen because Nguyen uses a different algorithm, but Applicant does not point to the structure of Applicant’s algorithm.
Applicant argues at Remarks, pgs. 8-9 that the claims are nonobvious because Nguyen teaches changing channels to track frequency hopping and jamming the signal.
Applicant merely alleges patentability, which is unpersuasive. Applicant does not explain how “reactive” jamming (i.e. “detecting and tracking the target’s hopping behavior”) does not result in periodically changing a transmission channel according to a predetermined, random or pseudo-random pattern.” Nguyen makes clear that Frequency Hopping Spread-Spectrum (FHSS) signals change channels (see Nguyen, paras. 4-5). The exemplary embodiment of the Nguyen system works against Bluetooth’s FHSS system, which hops at a rate of 1600 times per second “using an unpredictable pseudo-random hopping pattern.” The function of the Nguyen system is to jam the Bluetooth FHSS using narrowband jamming. The only logical conclusion of a system that jams on a narrow band against a sending device “which hops at a rate of 1600 times per second” is that the Nguyen system is periodically changing a transmission channel. The reactive system is either predetermined in that it is a predetermined reactive algorithm, or it is pseudo-random in that the Bluetooth hopping is pseudo-random and the Nguyen system is designed to detect and match it.
Consequently, Examiner initially rejects the new limitation using Nguyen. Assuming Applicant’s complaint against Nguyen is founded in its reactive nature, Examiner creates an alternate ground of rejection citing Kuhne, which teaches a predictive system in which the system measures emissions to find a timing and a channel sequence and then jams those channels, which is a periodic change on a predetermined pattern. Examiner notes that both Nguyen and Kuhne provide the important enabling teaching that is missing from the instant disclosure: Specification pg. 8 discloses that the communication protocols the instant invention works against (Wi-Fi and Bluetooth) “include channel hopping” but the only disclosure as to how channels are selected to jam is “To this end the present technique may operate to switch channels according to a predetermined, random or pseudorandom pattern, within a period timescale of the order of milliseconds…Channel switching is used to block communication over the entire spectrum, noting channel hoping function of the communication protocols used.” In other words, the references teach particular manners of intelligently identifying which channels are being used and configuring a reactive or predictive algorithm to block those channels, while the instant disclosure merely points out that channel hopping schemes exist and the instant invention also engages in channel hopping (in some undisclosed fashion) to block those signals.
Applicant argues at Remarks, pg. 9 that the new predetermined arrangement limitation is not taught. It is taught above.
Applicant argues at Remarks, pg. 9 that the motivation does not address the newly amended limitations. The new limitations are taught above.
Examiner maintains the obviousness rejection to all claims. All claims remain rejected.
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 extension fee 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 NICHOLAS P CELANI whose telephone number is (571)272-1205. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-5.
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, Vivek Srivastava can be reached on 571-272-7304. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS P CELANI/Examiner, Art Unit 2449
Prosecution Insights