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 .
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.
Claim 1 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,683,779 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all of the claimed features of the current application are disclosed in claim 1 of US 11,683,779 B2 as shown in the side-by-side comparison table below.
Current Application
US 11,683,779 B2
1. An apparatus, comprising: a memory for storing instructions; a processing unit configured to execute instructions for controlling a set of sensor nodes in a wireless network architecture; and determining locations of the plurality of sensor nodes; and radio frequency circuitry configured to transmit communications to and receive communications from the plurality of sensor nodes, each sensor node comprising a wireless device comprising a transmitter and a receiver supporting bi-directional communications with the radio frequency circuitry in the wireless network architecture; wherein the processing unit is configured to execute instructions to calibrate an automatic gain control stage of the radio frequency circuitry and to calculate a time of flight estimate for communications between the apparatus and a sensor node based on the calibration of the automatic gain control stage.
1. An apparatus, comprising: a memory for storing instructions; a set of processing units to execute instructions for controlling a plurality of sensor nodes in a wireless network architecture and determining locations of the plurality of sensor nodes; and a radio frequency ( ) circuitry to transmit communications to and receive communications from the plurality of sensor nodes each having a wireless device with a transmitter and a receiver to enable bi-directional communications with the radio frequency circuitry of the apparatus in the wireless network architecture, wherein the set of processing units of the apparatus are configured to execute instructions to: calibrate an automatic gain control stage of the radio frequency circuitry by measuring a delay of the automatic gain control stage as a function of gain; and determine a time of flight estimate for communications between the apparatus and a sensor node based on the calibration of the automatic gain control stage.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghosh (US 2017/0280279) in view of Mujtaba (US 2017/0188192).
Ghosh discloses the following features.
Regarding claim 1, an apparatus (see gateway 115 including an access point 110 in Fig. 3A), comprising: a memory for storing instructions; a processing unit to execute instructions (Figs. 6-7 shows the memory/processor assembly) for controlling a set of sensor nodes (see “IoT devices” recited in paragraph [0039] and represented as device 105 in Fig. 3A, wherein IoT devices may be “sensors” as shown in paragraph [0011]) in a wireless network architecture (see network in Fig. 3A); and determining locations of the plurality of sensor nodes (see paragraph [0039], wherein the gateway 110 may determine the location of the IoT device 105 based on both location information stored in a database as well as using time of flight, signal strength and angle of arrival information of signal received from the IoT device); and radio frequency circuitry configured to transmit communications to and receive communications from the plurality of sensor nodes, each sensor node comprising a wireless device comprising a transmitter and a receiver supporting bi-directional communications with the radio frequency circuitry in the wireless network architecture (see “communication interfaces” recited in paragraph [0011]; “wireless communication technology” recited in paragraph [0016]; “communication between IoT…access points…and gateways” recited in paragraph [0020]), wherein the processing unit is configured to execute instructions to calculate a time of flight estimate for communications between the apparatus and a sensor node (see paragraph [0039], wherein the gateway 110 may determine the location of the IoT device 105 based on both location information stored in a database as well as using time of flight, signal strength and angle of arrival information of signal received from the IoT device).
Ghosh does not disclose the following features: regarding claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to execute instructions to calibrate an automatic gain control stage of the radio frequency circuitry and to calculate a time of flight estimate for communications between the apparatus and a sensor node based on the calibration of the automatic gain control stage.
Mujtaba discloses the following features.
Regarding claim 1, wherein the processing unit is configured to execute instructions to calibrate an automatic gain control stage of the radio frequency circuitry and to calculate a time of flight estimate for communications between the apparatus and a sensor node based on the calibration of the automatic gain control stage (see “Prior to transmitting this time of flight estimation (ToFE) waveform, the transmitting and receiving devices may exchange various packets to set up the ToFE measurement. A channel estimate, e.g., an amount of desired gain, may be determined from these prior packet exchanges, and Automatic Gain Control (AGC) may be performed when transmitting the waveform, where the gain used is derived from these prior packet exchanges. The amount of AGC may be determined (locked) from previous packet exchanges” recited in paragraph [0063], wherein the AGC is calibrated based on prior packet exchanges and the time of flight estimation is performed based on the calibrated AGC).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the current application to modify the system of Ghosh using features, as taught by Mujtaba, in order to determine the amount of desired gain to be determined (see paragraph [0063] of Mujtaba).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUTAI KAO whose telephone number is (571)272-9719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-17:00 EST.
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, Kwang Yao can be reached at (571)272-3182. 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.
/JUTAI KAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473
Prosecution Insights