DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 21 and 31 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,113,726. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
As to claim 21, conflicting claim 2 includes all the claimed limitations.
As to claim 31, conflicting claim 12 includes all the claimed limitations.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 21, 23-24, 31, 33-34 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ngan (US 7,123,911 B1) in view of Mori (US 2012/0020273 A1).
As to claims 21, 31, Ngan discloses a method, comprising: in a relay device 102 (see at least figure 1) that comprises a plurality of antennas 104-108, 112-116): selecting a first set of antennas 104-108 of the plurality of antennas to establish a first link between the relay device and a source device (see column 3 lines 59-64); selecting a second set of antennas 112-116 of the plurality of antennas to establish a second link between the relay device 102 and a destination device (see column 3 lines 59-64), wherein the selection of the second set of antennas is based on at least one of a width of antenna pattern or a transmit power per antenna of the plurality of antennas (see column 9 lines 14-26); receiving a signal from the source device via the first link (see column 3 lines 59-64).
Ngan fails to disclose selecting one of an active mode or a passive mode; in a case where the active mode is selected: demodulating the received signal to obtain a demodulated signal; and transmitting the demodulated signal on the second link to the destination device; and in a case where the passive mode is selected, forwarding the received signal to the destination device on the second link without the demodulating of the received signal. Mori discloses selecting one of an active mode (see “regenerator” 14 in figure 2) or a passive mode (see “non-regenerator” 12 in figure 2); in a case where the active mode is selected: demodulating the received signal to obtain a demodulated signal; and transmitting the demodulated signal on the second link to the destination device (see paragraph [0030] which discloses “The demodulator/decoder 31, the encoder/modulator 32, and the controller A33 function as a regenerator”); and in a case where the passive mode is selected, forwarding the received signal to the destination device on the second link without the demodulating of the received signal (see paragraph [0024] which discloses “The non-regenerator 12 generates a non-regeneration signal using the received signal as is”). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Mori to Ngan, in order to yield predictable results such as reducing the delay amount induced by the relay device (as suggested by Mori at paragraph [0045]).
As to claims 23, 33, Ngan discloses configuring a first beamforming setting for the first set of antennas. See figure 1, beam selector 110.
As to claims 24, 34, Ngan discloses configuring a second beamforming setting for the second set of antennas, wherein the first beamforming setting is different from the second beamforming setting. See figure 1, beam selector 118; and column 9 lines 14-26.
Claims 22, 32 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ngan (US 7,123,911 B1) in view of Mori (US 2012/0020273 A1) as applied to claims 21, 31 above, and further in view of Hong (US 2013/0223554 A1).
As to claims 22, 32, the combination of Ngan and Mori fails to disclose measuring signal power of the received signal; selecting the first set of antennas based on the measure signal power of the received signal. The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that the teaching of measuring signal power of a received signal; and selecting a first set of antennas based on the measure signal power of the received signal is known in the art, for example, receiver diversity techniques. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Ngan and Mori as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as improving signal reception at the relay device.
The combination of Ngan and Mori further fails to disclose selecting the second set of antennas based on a distance between the relay device and the destination device. Hong discloses selecting a set of antennas based on a distance between a transmitting and a destination device (see paragraph [0021]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Hong to the combination of Ngan and Mori, in order to yield predictable results such as improving signal reception at the destination device.
Claims 25, 35 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ngan (US 7,123,911 B1) in view of Mori (US 2012/0020273 A1) as applied to claims 21, 31 above, and further in view of Kimura (WO 2011/039970 A1).
As to claims 25, 35, the combination of Ngan and Mori fails to disclose receiving data from a plurality of source devices including the source device; splitting the data into a plurality of data streams; and transmitting the plurality of data streams to a plurality of destination devices including the destination device. Kimura discloses receiving data from a plurality of source devices including the source device (see paragraph [0121]); splitting the data into a plurality of data streams (see demapper 128 in figure 6B; see also figure 10B which shows splitting a signal into two signals); and transmitting the plurality of data streams to a plurality of destination devices including the destination device (see paragraph [0121]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Kimura to the combination of Ngan and Mori, in order to yield predictable results such as more data communicated among source and destination devices.
Claims 26-29, 36-39 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ngan (US 7,123,911 B1) in view of Mori (US 2012/0020273 A1) as applied to claims 21, 31 above, and further in view of Lau (US 6,690,657 B1).
As to claims 26, 36, the combination of Ngan and Mori fails to disclose that in the case where the passive mode is selected: down-converting a first radio frequency signal, comprising the received signal, to an intermediate frequency signal; and up-converting the intermediate frequency signal to a second radio frequency signal for transmission on the second link. Lau discloses that in the case of a passive mode: down-converting 110 (see figure 14) a first radio frequency signal, comprising a received signal, to an intermediate frequency signal; and up-converting 122 the intermediate frequency signal to a second radio frequency signal for transmission on the second link (see also column 13 lines 32-37). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Lau to the combination of Ngan and Mori, in order to yield predictable results such as extending the dynamic range of the operating frequencies of the relay device.
As to claims 27, 37, the combination of Ngan and Mori discloses that a frequency band of the first radio frequency signal is same as the frequency band of the second radio frequency signal. See Mori, paragraph [0003] which discloses “At the relay device, the frequency of a radio wave received from the radio base station and the frequency at which the radio wave is transmitted to a mobile terminal is the same”.
As to claims 28, 38, the combination of Ngan and Mori discloses that receiving the first radio frequency signal at a first time slot (see Mori, paragraph [0035]); and transmitting the second radio frequency signal at a second time slot (see Mori, paragraph [0035]), wherein a frequency band of the first radio frequency signal is same as a frequency band of the second radio frequency signal (see Mori, paragraph [0003] which discloses “At the relay device, the frequency of a radio wave received from the radio base station and the frequency at which the radio wave is transmitted to a mobile terminal is the same”).
As to claims 29, 39, the combination of Ngan and Mori fails to disclose that a frequency band of the first radio frequency signal is different from a frequency band of the second radio frequency signal. Those skilled in the art would recognize that these claimed limitations do not involve any inventive concept. They merely depend on arbitrary values of frequency bands of the first radio frequency signal and the second radio frequency signal. In addition, the specification of the instant application fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from the fact that a frequency band of the first radio frequency signal is different from a frequency band of the second radio frequency signal. In addition, the examiner takes Official Notice that such as teaching is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Ngan and Mori as claimed, in order to yield predictable results such as extending dynamic range of the operating frequencies, and reducing signal interference.
Claims 30, 40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ngan (US 7,123,911 B1) in view of Mori (US 2012/0020273 A1), and Lau (US 6,690,657 B1) as applied to claims 26, 36 above, and further in view of Mu (US 2010/0284446 A1).
As to claims 30, 40, the combination of Ngan, Mori, Lau fails to disclose switching a frequency band of the first radio frequency signal and the second radio frequency signal based on one or more network parameters associated with the first link and the second link. Mu discloses switching a frequency band of a first radio frequency signal and a second radio frequency signal based on one or more network parameters associated with the first link and the second link (see paragraph [0092]; in this instance, the claimed “one or more network parameters associated with the first link and the second link” reads on “low-interference” in Mu). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Mu to the combination of Ngan, Mori, and Lau, in order to yield predictable results such as reducing signal interference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US 2010/0035541 A1) discloses a repeater selecting either an active mode or a passive mode.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights