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 .
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.
Claims 1-4 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.
Claim 1 recites “the wireless communication antenna assembly”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. In order to examine this application, examiner will assume the limitation is “the wireless communication assembly”.
Claims 2-4 depends on claim 1.
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 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,165,132. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11,165,132 discloses everything except slight difference in wording. Patent No. 11,165,132 does not teach a housing having a length ranging from 100 to 250 millimeters (mm), a width ranging from 50 to 100mm, and a height ranging from 50 to 90mm, the housing positioned over the component mounting surface, the first heat transfer plate, the second heat transfer plate and the modem. 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 a housing having a length ranging from 100 to 250 millimeters (mm), a width ranging from 50 to 100mm, and a height ranging from 50 to 90mm, the housing positioned over the component mounting surface, the first heat transfer plate, the second heat transfer plate and the modem in U.S. Patent No. 11,165,132, 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, having a housing in order to position over and protect the internal components of the wireless communication assembly for a vehicle is already well-known in the art, and that a particular dimension of the housing depends on the internal components and the vehicle size for aerodynamics, and that particular dimension can be determined through routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art without yielding any unpredictable result.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-13 of U.S. Patent No. 11,664,573. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 11,664,573 discloses everything except slight difference in wording. U.S. Patent No. 11,664,573 does not teach a housing having a length ranging from 100 to 250 millimeters (mm), a width ranging from 50 to 100mm, and a height ranging from 50 to 90mm, the housing positioned over the component mounting surface, the first heat transfer plate, the second heat transfer plate and the modem. 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 a housing having a length ranging from 100 to 250 millimeters (mm), a width ranging from 50 to 100mm, and a height ranging from 50 to 90mm, the housing positioned over the component mounting surface, the first heat transfer plate, the second heat transfer plate and the modem in U.S. Patent No. 11,664,573, 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, having a housing in order to position over and protect the internal components of the wireless communication assembly for a vehicle is already well-known in the art, and that a particular dimension of the housing depends on the internal components and the vehicle size for aerodynamics, and that particular dimension can be determined through routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art without yielding any unpredictable result.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-8 of U.S. Patent No. 12,113,267. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because U.S. Patent No. 12,113,267 discloses everything except slight difference in wording. U.S. Patent No. 12,113,267 does not teach a housing having a length ranging from 100 to 250 millimeters (mm), a width ranging from 50 to 100mm, and a height ranging from 50 to 90mm, the housing positioned over the component mounting surface, the first heat transfer plate, the second heat transfer plate and the modem. 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 a housing having a length ranging from 100 to 250 millimeters (mm), a width ranging from 50 to 100mm, and a height ranging from 50 to 90mm, the housing positioned over the component mounting surface, the first heat transfer plate, the second heat transfer plate and the modem in U.S. Patent No. 12,113,267, 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, having a housing in order to position over and protect the internal components of the wireless communication assembly for a vehicle is already well-known in the art, and that a particular dimension of the housing depends on the internal components and the vehicle size for aerodynamics, and that particular dimension can be determined through routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art without yielding any unpredictable result.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barak et al. (US 2009/0231186; hereinafter “Barak”) in view of Alam et al. (US 10,143,030; hereinafter “Alam”) and Panorama (see NPL: Panorama Antennas Ltd., "GPSD Multifunction MiMo Antenna", product datasheet, 23 June 2016. Retrieved from the internet <URL: https://www.co-star.co.uk/_uploads/pdfs/bd6802a7-d3e9-492d-b1bc-cec21acd11af.pdf>).
Regarding claim 1 as best understood, Barak teaches a heat dissipation system for wireless communication assembly for a vehicle (Figs. 1-4), the wireless communication assembly having a modem (100, Figs. 3, 4) that generates heat during operation and an amplifier (76, Figs. 3, 4), the heat dissipation system comprising:
a base (60+44, Figs. 1, 2) comprising a sidewall (sidewall of 44 or 60 in Fig. 2), a component mounting surface (surface of 44, Figs. 1, 2) and a heat sink (heat sink with fins shown in Fig. 2; [0032]), the heat sink comprising a plurality of heat dissipation elements (plurality of fins as shown in Fig. 2); and
a first heat transfer plate (same as one of the plurality of 48, Figs. 1, 2) in thermal contact with the modem (direct or indirect thermal contact, note there are plurality of 48, also see location of modem 100 in relation to 72 in Figs. 2-4);
a second heat transfer plate (another one of the plurality of 48, Figs. 1, 2) mounted on the amplifier (direct or indirect thermal contact, note there are plurality of 48, also see location of amplifier 76 in relation to 72 in Figs. 2-4);
a modem is disposed on the component mounting surface (100 is on the mounting surface of 44);
a communication cable (not shown, but mentioned in [0042, 0043]: “…The down-converted signal is output on connector (see Fig. 1) via a power injector 96. The signal is provided for further processing by a Set-Top Box…cable…”) connected to the modem at one end and configured to connect a vehicle internal device at an opposite end (same as STB mentioned in [0042-0044]) positioned within the vehicle ([0042]: “…typically mounted inside the vehicle.”; Fig. 3);
a housing (64, Fig. 1) positioned over the component mounting surface, the first heat transfer plate, the second heat transfer plate and the modem;
wherein the first heat transfer plate is in thermal contact with a first area of the heat sink (48 thermally contact with an area of 60 closest to 100);
wherein the second heat transfer plate is in thermal contact with a second area of the heat sink (area of heat sink closest to 76);
wherein the first area of the heat sink is located on one side of the base, the second area of the heat sink is located on an opposing side of the base (100 and 76 are located on different side of 44, so the two area of the heat sink are different, can refer to Figs. 1-4), and a third area of the heat sink is located at a rear section of the base (rear of 60+44, Figs. 1, 2).
Barak does not explicitly teach the vehicle internal device has vehicle internal router. However, Alam (Figs. 1, 2) teaches a communication cable (see line from 114 to 126 in Fig. 1) connected to a wireless communication 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 have vehicle internal router as part of the vehicle internal device in Barak, as taught by Alam, in order to route internet and manage network traffics for various devices.
Barak in view of Alam above does not explicitly teach the housing having a length ranging from 100 to 250 millimeters (mm), a width ranging from 50 to 100mm, and a height ranging from 50 to 90mm. However, Panorama teaches a housing (see shark fin housing in pg. 1) having a length ranging from 100 to 250 millimeters (mm), a width ranging from 50 to 100mm, and a height ranging from 50 to 90mm (see dimension in pgs. 1-2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the housing having a length ranging from 100 to 250 millimeters (mm), a width ranging from 50 to 100mm, and a height ranging from 50 to 90mm in Barak in view of Alam, as taught by Panorama, in order to provide better aerodynamic on top of the vehicle.
Regarding claim 2, Barak in view of Alam and Panorama teaches the heat dissipation system according to Claim 1, and Barak further teaches wherein each of the plurality of heat dissipation elements is selected from the group comprising a fin and a pin ([0032]: “”heat sink fins…”; can refer to Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 3, Barak in view of Alam and Panorama teaches the heat dissipation system according to Claim 1. Barak does not explicitly teach the base has a width ranging from 2.5 inches to 5.5 inches, and a length ranging from 6.0 inches to 8.0 inches. 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 the base has a width ranging from 2.5 inches to 5.5 inches, and a length ranging from 6.0 inches to 8.0 inches in Barak in view of Alam, since it has also been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980). In this case, finding the optimal dimension of the base in order to fit the antenna and other network devices and also make it compact enough so as not to interfere with the aerodynamic of the vehicle can be found through routine experimentation to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 4, Barak in view of Alam and Panorama teaches the heat dissipation system according to Claim 1. Barak does not explicitly teach wherein the first and second heat transfer plates are each made of material selected from the list consisting of copper, aluminum, graphite, carbon diamond, magnesium, gold, silver, aluminum nitride, silicon carbide, and zinc. However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to the have first and second heat transfer plates are each made of material selected from the list consisting of copper, aluminum, graphite, carbon diamond, magnesium, gold, silver, aluminum nitride, silicon carbide, and zinc in Barak in view of Alam, since it has been held that a selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. Selecting a known compound to meet requirements is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art (citing Sinclair & Carroll Co. v. Interchemical Corp., 325 U.S. 327, 65 USPQ 297 (1945)). In this case, all the material groups are known to have good heat dissipation, and selecting any of these materials yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to claims 1-4 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights