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 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).
Claims (1-20) are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable claims (1-18) US Patent No. 12,256,240. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the present application are transparently found in the US Patent No. 12,256,240 with obvious wording variations. Take an example of comparing claim (1) of pending application and claim (1) of US Patent No. 12,256,240:
Pending Application (18/896,334)
US Patent No. 12,256,240
1. A vehicle antenna control system comprising:
a first vehicle;
an antenna coupled to the first vehicle, the antenna electrically coupled to a transceiver;
and
at least one processor configured to:
determine a configuration of a beam pattern emanated by the antenna, the beam
pattern associated with a wireless communication link to at least one of a second vehicle
proximate to the first vehicle or a stationary object proximate to the first vehicle; and
reconfigure the antenna based on the configuration of the beam pattern, a beam
tracking packet, and a steering angle associated with the antenna and a distance between
the first vehicle and the second vehicle or the stationary object, in order to provide beam
tracking of the beam pattern, wherein a rate of reconfiguration of the antenna is based on
a velocity of the first vehicle relative to the second vehicle or the stationary object,
wherein reconfiguring the antenna includes modifying the beam pattern, and modifying
the beam pattern includes,
establishing the wireless communication link with a first beamwidth, and
reducing beamwidth to a second beamwidth which is narrower than the first
beamwidth during a beam alignment.
1. A vehicle antenna control system comprising:
a first vehicle;
an antenna coupled to the first vehicle, the antenna electrically coupled to a transceiver;
and
at least one processor configured to:
determine a configuration of a beam pattern emanated by the antenna, the beam
pattern associated with a wireless communication link to at least one of a second vehicle
proximate to the first vehicle or a stationary object proximate to the first vehicle; and
reconfigure the antenna based on the configuration of the beam pattern, a beam
tracking packet, and a steering angle associated with the antenna and a distance between
the first vehicle and the second vehicle or the stationary object, in order to provide beam
tracking of the beam pattern, wherein a rate of reconfiguration of the antenna is based on
a velocity of the first vehicle relative to the second vehicle or the stationary object,
wherein reconfiguring the antenna includes reconfiguring the beam pattern
emanated by the antenna based on a target data rate for transmission via the wireless
communication link associated with the beam pattern.
The claims of the application (18/896,334) encompass the same subject matter except the instant claims are broader and fully encompassed by US Patent No. 12,256,240 B2. Specifically, application 18/896,334 discloses a “determine a configuration of a beam pattern emanated by the antenna, the beam
pattern associated with a wireless communication link to at least one of a second vehicle
proximate to the first vehicle or a stationary object proximate to the first vehicle” whereas US Patent No. 12,256,240 B2 claims include “determine a configuration of a beam pattern emanated by the antenna, the beam pattern associated with a wireless communication link to at least one of a second vehicle proximate to the first vehicle or a stationary object proximate to the first vehicle” and “reconfiguring the beam pattern
emanated by the antenna based on a target data rate for transmission via the wireless
communication link associated with the beam pattern.”. The aforementioned omissions, however, do not entirely change the results of each invention and both inventions, minus stated variations, have the exact same purpose and provide identical results. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to implement the US Patent No. 12,256,240 B2’s antenna control system because it would be an obvious variant or choice to describe prevailing features utilizing “reconfiguring the antenna includes reconfiguring the beam pattern emanated by the antenna based on a target data rate for transmission”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Raghavan et al. US 20210159957 A1
Foerster et al. US 10911962 B2
Cheng et al. US 2017/0141830 A1
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to K. WILFORD SHAHEED whose telephone number is (469) 295-9175. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9 am-6pm; CST; ALT Friday. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. The examiner’s Supervisor, Jinsong Hu, can be reached at (571)272-3965, where attempts to reach the examiner are unsuccessful.
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.
/KHALID W SHAHEED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2643
Prosecution Insights