CTNF 18/802,652 CTNF 77862 Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA 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. 08-35 Claim s 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of copending Application No. 18,956,459 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims are directed to the same process of comparing quality and switching based on polarization, as the present claim alternatively claims polarization, the metes and bounds of the claim are substantially the same . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 08-35 Claim s 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim s 1-20 of copending Application No. 18,519,384 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims are directed to the same process of comparing quality and switching based on frequency, as the present claim alternatively claims frequency, the metes and bounds of the claim are substantially the same . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-01 AIA 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. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: 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 of carrying out his invention. Claim 20 is 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 20 states “switching the polarization is performed using a plurality of polarization antennas and using a single antenna and configuring a PIN diode.” However, the specification only mentions using one or the other not both, see application paragraph 0033. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b) 07-30-02 AIA 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. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. 07-34-01 Claims 6, 11 and 17-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claims 6 recites the limitation "switching the frequency and the polarization” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It depends form claim 1 which only claims polarization switching in the alternative, so that it is unclear whether the system must switch one of frequency or polarization or just polarization or both as in this claim. Claim 11 recites the limitation "polarization switching " in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It depends form claim 9 which only claims polarization switching device in the alternative, and thus there is no positive support for antecedence. Claims 17 recites the limitation "switching the frequency and the polarization” in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It depends form claim 13 which only claims polarization switching in the alternative, so that it is unclear whether the system must switch one of frequency or polarization or just polarization or both as in this claim. Claims 18 recites the limitation "switching the polarization " in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It depends form claim 13 which only claims polarization switching in the alternative, so that it is unclear whether the system must switch one of frequency or polarization or just polarization. Claims 19 recites the limitation "switching a polarization " in the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It depends form claim 13 which only claims polarization switching in the alternative, so that it is unclear whether the system must switch one of frequency or polarization or just polarization. Claim 20 is likewise rejected based on its dependence. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – 07-08-aia AIA (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-4, 6-10, 12-16 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Krinsky (US 2008/0248743) . 1, Krinsky discloses a control method for a radio device for a vehicle, the control method comprising: determining whether to scan alternative broadcasts based on a signal quality of a listening broadcast, [0022] In joint operation, the radio 158 can access the database 160 to determine different frequencies to scan that likely have similar or the same content as that which is currently being received and processed to an audio output by the radio. The location device 156 supplies location information to the radio, or to the database 160. Location information is valuable here because the location information may be used, along with a station or frequency identifier, to identify candidate alternative radio stations and their respective frequency of operation that have similar content to the presently received audio information. Once location and possible frequency are known, the radio 158 can scan for those frequencies and take signal quality measurements] wherein each of the alternative broadcasts has the same content as the listening broadcast and is a radio broadcast having a frequency or a polarization that is different from the frequency or the polarization of the listening broadcast; [0022 alternative radio transmitter frequencies can be identified as alternative to the currently received contents] scanning the alternative broadcasts; [0022, the radio 158 can scan for those frequencies] comparing the signal quality of the listening broadcast with signal qualities of the alternative broadcasts to determine to switch the listening broadcast to a selected one of the alternative broadcasts; and in response to a determination to switch the listening broadcast to the selected alternative broadcast, switching the listening broadcast to the selected alternative broadcast. [0023, the signal quality is compared and the radio switches] 2. The control method of claim 1, wherein determining whether to scan the alternative broadcasts is based on whether a signal strength of the listening broadcast is equal to or higher than a reference strength. [0022 indication may be signal strength; [0028 a station of higher quality is determined]] 3. The control method of claim 1, wherein scanning the alternative broadcasts comprises: selecting the alternative broadcasts; and collecting information on the alternative broadcasts. [0023, alternate broadcast information is collected in a database] 4. The control method of claim 3, wherein the alternative broadcasts are selected from among a plurality of detected broadcasts based on signal patterns of the plurality of detected broadcasts and the listening broadcast. [0026 the signal may contain a subcarrier indication] 6. The control method of claim 1, wherein switching the listening broadcast to the selected alternative broadcast comprises switching the frequency and the polarization to the frequency and the polarization corresponding to the selected alternative broadcast. [0023, the radio switches to the alternative broadcast, meaning it must conform to the frequency and polarization of the new selection] 7. The control method of claim 1, wherein determining to switch the listening broadcast to the selected alternative broadcast comprises determining that the signal quality of the selected alternative broadcast is higher than the signal quality of the listening broadcast. [0028 a station of higher quality is determined] 8. A radio device for a vehicle, the radio device comprising: a signal processing device configured to process signals regarding a listening broadcast and alternative broadcasts, wherein each of the alternative broadcast has a same content as the listening broadcast and is a radio broadcast having a frequency or a polarization that is different from the frequency or the polarization of the listening broadcast; and a processor configured to switch the listening broadcast to a selected alternative broadcast from among the alternative broadcasts based on information transferred from the signal processing device. [0022-0023, 0028 see above for specific mapping, the scanning, comparison and switching are clearly shown.] 9. The radio device of claim 8, wherein the processor is configured to switch the listening broadcast to the selected alternative broadcast using a polarization switching device or a frequency switching device. [[0023, device 158 switches to the new broadcast frequency]] 10. The radio device of claim 9, wherein the polarization switching device comprises a plurality of polarization antennas. [0017 it may include an array of antennas, which are inherently polarized (note applicant has not claimed different polarizations)] 12. The radio device of claim 8, wherein the signal processing device comprises a main tuner, a sub-tuner, a first signal processing circuit, and a second signal processing circuit. [Claim 13 states that there are at least two tuner, further 0016 states there are multiple receivers thus multiple signal processors and multiple tuners any of which could be designated a “sub-tuner”] 13. Krinsky discloses a control method for a radio device for a vehicle, the control method comprising: determining that a signal strength of a listening broadcast is less than a reference strength; in response to determining that the signal strength of the listening broadcast is less than the reference strength, scanning alternative broadcasts, wherein each of the alternative broadcasts has the same content as the listening broadcast and is a radio broadcast having a frequency or a polarization that is different from the frequency or the polarization of the listening broadcast; collecting information on the alternative broadcasts, wherein the information on the alternative broadcasts comprises the frequency, the polarization, and a signal quality of each of the alternative broadcasts; comparing a signal quality of the listening broadcast with the signal quality of each of the alternative broadcasts; and determining whether to switch the listening broadcast to a selected alternative broadcast from among the alternative broadcasts based on the comparing determining that the signal quality of the selected alternative broadcast is higher than the signal quality of the listening broadcast. [0022-0023, 0028 see above for specific mapping, the scanning, comparison and switching are clearly shown.] 14. The control method of claim 13, in response to a determination to switch the listening broadcast to the selected alternative broadcast, switching the listening broadcast to the selected alternative broadcast. [0023, 158 switches] 15. The control method of claim 13, wherein scanning the alternative broadcasts comprises selecting the alternative broadcasts from among a plurality of detected broadcasts. [[0026 the signals may contain a subcarrier indications from a plurality of alternate broadcasts]] 16. The control method of claim 15, wherein the alternative broadcasts are selected from among the plurality of detected broadcasts based on signal patterns of the plurality of detected broadcasts and the listening broadcast. [0026 the signal may contain a subcarrier indication] 18. The control method of claim 13, switching the listening broadcast to the selected alternative broadcast is performed by switching a frequency. [0023, 158 switches frequency] Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5, 11, 17 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Krinsky (US 2008/0248743) in view of Zibrik (US 2010/0197261 A1) 5. Krinksy discloses the control method of claim 3, wherein the information on the alternative broadcasts comprises the frequency, the polarization, and the signal quality of each of the alternative broadcasts. [0023, signal quality and frequency are measured, stored and used] But does not expressly disclose storing polarization. Krinski discloses using polarization in antenna selection system, meaning it would be stored at least for immediate use. [0024] Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to store polarization in order to include all relevant information for antenna selection and operations. 11. Krinksy discloses the radio device of claim 9, wherein the polarization switching device comprises a single antenna and is configured of a PIN diode. [0017 it may include a single antenna configuration] but does not expressly disclose a PIN diode. Krinski disclose an analogous antenna switching system where the antenna may be controlled by a PIN diode [0086] Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use a PIN diode as an RF antenna switch as PIN diodes are a standard form of RF switch which are capable of speed and accuracy and applicant only provides one brief mention of its use while indicating no benefit or that it is an inventive aspect of the claimed invention. 17. Krinksy discloses the control method of claim 13, wherein switching the listening broadcast to the selected alternative broadcast But does not expressly disclose polarization. Krinski discloses using polarization in antenna selection system. [0024] Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use polarization switching as different polarizations exist in cellular system such as vertical from base stations and horizontal from vehicles so that polarization switching would provide for receiving more diverse signalling from more device. 19. Krinksy discloses the control method of claim 13, switching the listening broadcast to the selected alternative broadcast is performed by switching a polarization. But does not expressly disclose polarization. Krinski discloses using polarization in antenna selection system. [0024] Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use polarization switching as different polarizations exist in cellular system such as vertical from base stations and horizontal from vehicles so that polarization switching would provide for receiving more diverse signaling from more device . Conclusion 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the attached PTO-82 for further state of art references . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LEWIS G WEST whose telephone number is (571)272-7859. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:00-4:00. 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, George Eng can be reached at (571) 272-7495. 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. /LEWIS G WEST/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/802,652 Page 2 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/802,652 Page 3 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/802,652 Page 4 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/802,652 Page 5 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/802,652 Page 6 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/802,652 Page 7 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/802,652 Page 8 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/802,652 Page 9 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/802,652 Page 10 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/802,652 Page 11 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/802,652 Page 12 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/802,652 Page 13 Art Unit: 2699 Application/Control Number: 18/802,652 Page 14 Art Unit: 2699
Prosecution Insights