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 .
Title
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0058] recites “… antenna elements 31, 32…”, which should have been “…antenna elements 41, 42…” instead.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 5-7 and 10-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,621,476. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11,621,476 discloses everything except minor difference in wording such as an activation mode, however, activating the modem from the low power sleep mode would imply the modem is no longer in low power sleep mode and is in “an activation mode”.
Claims 6-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,113,273. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 12,113,273 discloses everything except minor difference in wording such as an activation mode, however, activating the modem from the low power sleep mode would imply the modem is no longer in low power sleep mode and is in “an activation mode”.
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.
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.
Claim 5 is 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.
Claim 5 recites “the sleep sense input”. There is a lack of antecedent basis. In order to examine this application, examiner will assume the limitation is “the sleep sense command” instead.
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 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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barak et al. (US 2009/0231186; hereinafter “Barak”) in view of Suman et al. (US 6,028,537; hereinafter “Suman”).
Regarding claim 1, Barak teaches an antenna assembly for a vehicle, the antenna assembly (Figs. 1 -4) comprising:
a base (60, Figs. 1-2, 4);
a modem (100, Figs. 3-4) disposed within the base;
a housing (64 and/or 44, Figs. 1, 2) for covering the base (covering portions of the base).
Barak does not teach a sleep sense command configured to activate the antenna assembly from a low power sleep mode when an ignition input of the vehicle or a universal serial bus (USB) port voltage of a vehicle device when the modem of the antenna assembly is in a low power sleep mode. However, Suman teaches a sleep sense command (power from ignition turned on) configured to activate an antenna assembly (22) from a low power sleep mode when an ignition input of a vehicle is received by the antenna assembly (col. 57, ln. 59-col. 58, ln. 10: “…transceiver wake-up system… antenna 22… a sleep mode is entered when microprocessor 26 determines that the vehicle ignition has been turned off…”; note sleep mode is the same as low power sleep mode…; see Fig. 3; also note that based on the specification, it is implied that when ignition is on the antenna assembly is not in low power sleep mode). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a sleep sense command configured to activate the antenna assembly from a low power sleep mode when an ignition input of the vehicle or a universal serial bus (USB) port voltage of a vehicle device when the modem of the antenna assembly is in a low power sleep mode in Barak, as taught by Suman, in order to conserve energy when the ignition is off, and wake-up the antenna assembly when the ignition is on.
Regarding claim 2, Barak in view of Suman teaches the antenna assembly according to claim 1, and Barak further teaches a plurality of antenna elements (28, Figs. 3-4).
Regarding claim 4, Barak in view of Suman teaches the antenna assembly according to claim 1, and Barak further teaches wherein the base further comprises a plurality of heat dissipation elements (heat sink with fins shown on 60 as shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 5 as best understood, Barak in view of Suman teaches the antenna assembly according to claim 1, and Suman further teaches wherein the sleep sense command is synchronized with a power mode of the vehicle device (same as power from ignition turned on as established in above claim 1 by Suman).
Regarding claim 6, Barak teaches a method comprising: a modem (100, Figs. 3-4) for an antenna assembly for a vehicle (Figs. 1-4; [0027]).
Barak does not explicitly teach receiving an activation signal at a processor from an ignition input of a vehicle or a universal serial bus (USB) port voltage of a vehicle device, when a modem of an antenna assembly is in a low power sleep mode; activating the modem from the low power sleep mode to an activation mode; receiving an input deactivation signal at the processor from the ignition input of the vehicle or a router USB port voltage of the USB port voltage and deactivating the modem into the low power sleep mode. However, Suman teaches receiving an activation signal (same as wake-up) at a processor (26, Fig. 3) from an ignition input of a vehicle or a universal serial bus (USB) port voltage of a vehicle device, when a modem of an antenna assembly (22, Fig. 3) is in a low power sleep mode; activating the modem from the low power sleep mode to an activation mode; receiving an input deactivation signal at the processor from the ignition input of the vehicle or a router USB port voltage of the USB port voltage and deactivating the modem into the low power sleep mode (col. 57, ln. 59-col. 58, ln. 10: “…transceiver wake-up system… antenna 22… a sleep mode is entered when microprocessor 26 determines that the vehicle ignition has been turned off…”; note sleep mode is the same as low power sleep mode…; see Fig. 3; also note that based on the specification, it is implied that when ignition is on the antenna assembly is not in low power sleep mode). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have an activation signal at a processor from an ignition input of a vehicle or a universal serial bus (USB) port voltage of a vehicle device, when a modem of an antenna assembly is in a low power sleep mode; activating the modem from the low power sleep mode to an activation mode; receiving an input deactivation signal at the processor from the ignition input of the vehicle or a router USB port voltage of the USB port voltage and deactivating the modem into the low power sleep mode in Barak, as taught by Suman, in order to conserve energy when the ignition is off, and wake-up the antenna assembly when the ignition is on.
Regarding claim 7, Barak in view of Suman teaches the method according to claim 6, and Barak further teaches wherein the antenna assembly comprises a base (60, Figs. 1-2, 4) comprising an interior surface (interior of 60), a sidewall (sidewall of 60) and a plurality of heat dissipation elements (heat sink with fins on 60 as shown in Fig. 2) outward from the sidewall, the modem (100, Figs. 3-4) disposed within the base, an antenna board (22, 24, Figs. 1-4) disposed within the base and comprising a plurality of antenna elements (28, Figs. 1-4); and a housing (64 and/or 44, Figs. 1, 2) for covering the base (covering portions of the base).
Regarding claim 8, Barak in view of Suman teaches the method according to claim 7, and Barak further teaches wherein the plurality of antenna elements comprises at least one Global Positioning System/Global Navigation Satellite System (GPS/GNSS) antenna element (36, Figs. 3-4).
Barak does not teach at least one LTE antenna element and at least one WiFi antenna element. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have at least one LTE antenna element and at least one WiFi antenna element in Barak in view of Suman, since all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, adding additional established antenna elements provide better wireless compatibility with modern electronics, and this does not provide any unexpected results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barak in view of Suman, and further in view of Alam et al. (US 10,143,030; hereinafter “Alam”).
Regarding claim 3, Barak in view of Suman teaches the antenna assembly according to claim 1. Barak does not teach wherein the vehicle device is a vehicle internal router. However, Alam (Figs. 1, 2) teaches a communication cable (see line from 114 to 126 in Fig. 1) connected to an antenna assembly (114, Fig. 1) at one end and configured to connect to a vehicle internal router (204 of 126, Figs. 1, 2) at an opposite end, and the vehicle internal router is located within a vehicle (inside 106, Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a vehicle device is a vehicle internal router in Barak in view of Suman, as taught by Alam, in order to route internet and manage network traffics for various devices.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES WU whose telephone number is (571)270-7974. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00AM - 5:00PM.
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, Allen Parker can be reached at (303)297-4722. 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.
/JAMES WU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841