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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in reply communication filed on 07/29/2024.
Claim 1 is pending.
Double Patenting
Non-Statutory
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 obviousness-type 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); and 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 a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
Note that the applicant filing of the continuing application is voluntary and not the direct, unmodified result of restriction requirement under 35 U.S.C. 121 (i.e. without a restriction requirement by the examiner) and the claims of the second application are drawn to the “same invention” as patent.
It has been held that the omission an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App.1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art. Moreover, the doctrine of double patenting seeks to prevent the unjustified extension of patent exclusivity beyond the term of a patent.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of DEHGHAN-FARD et al. (US Patent No 11,362,776 and 12,052,189) (referred as DEHGHAN-FARD’s 776).
Regarding claim 1, DEHGHAN-FARD’s 776 discloses a method, comprising:
detecting arrival of a packet at a receiver node having a plurality of antenna sectors, including detecting over the air energy using at least one of the plurality of antenna sectors (see claim 10, lines 19-22);
selecting one or more radio frequency (RF) receive parameters of the receiver node based on information included in or determined from a pre-payload portion of the packet (see claim 10, lines 30-32), including at least one of:
selecting a first subset of the plurality of antenna sectors that each has one or more sector-specific metrics that is better than one or more sector-specific metrics of each of a second subset of the plurality of antenna sectors to receive the payload of the packet (see claim 12); or
selecting an antenna polarization to receive the payload of the packet based on one or more metrics included in or determined from the pre-payload portion of the packet, the selected antenna polarization having better one or more metrics than an other antenna polarization (see claim 12); and
receiving a payload of the packet at the receiver node using the selected one or more RF receive parameters (see claim 10, lines 34-36).
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of DEHGHAN-FARD et al. (US Patent No 12,052,189) (referred as DEHGHAN-FARD’s 189).
Regarding claim 1, DEHGHAN-FARD’s 189 discloses a method, comprising:
detecting arrival of a packet at a receiver node having a plurality of antenna sectors, including detecting over the air energy using at least one of the plurality of antenna sectors (see claim 1, lines 1-5);
selecting one or more radio frequency (RF) receive parameters of the receiver node based on information included in or determined from a pre-payload portion of the packet (see claim 1, lines 6-9), including at least one of:
selecting a first subset of the plurality of antenna sectors that each has one or more sector-specific metrics that is better than one or more sector-specific metrics of each of a second subset of the plurality of antenna sectors to receive the payload of the packet (see claim 1, lines 10-14); or
selecting an antenna polarization to receive the payload of the packet based on one or more metrics included in or determined from the pre-payload portion of the packet, the selected antenna polarization having better one or more metrics than an other antenna polarization (see claim 1, lines 16-21); and
receiving a payload of the packet at the receiver node using the selected one or more RF receive parameters (see claim 1, lines 22-23).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 1 is allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHONG LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2588. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IAN MOORE can be reached on 571-272-3085. 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.
/PHONG LA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469