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 4, 8, 13, 15, and 19 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 4 and 15 contain the trademark/trade name Bluetooth. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe continuously changing communications protocol set forth by the BLUETOOTH® standard and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Claims 8, 13, and 19 contains the trademark/trade name WiFi. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe a proprietary communication standard, but it fails to define the exact technical parameters, frequency bands, or IEEE 802.11 protocols required by the limitation and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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.
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King et al. US 2021/0304746 A1 (hereinafter referred to as King) in view of Secades et al. US 2009/0135731 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Secades).
As per claim 1, King teaches: A communications system comprising ([0010] mentions a communication device shown on FIG. 1) : a land mobile radio (LMR) having a first data rate; a broadband backhaul radio (BBR) having a second data rate higher than the first data rate ([0010] says “For example, transceiver may comprise a land mobile radio (LMR) transceiver for narrowband (NB) operations, such as two-way radio (half-duplex) communications, as well as a broadband (BB) transceiver for high speed communications. Examples of the broadband transceiver high speed communications may include Wi-Fi, LTE 4G, LTE 5G, or some other high-speed wireless broadband communication.”) ; a controller configured to operate at least one application for communication via the LMR ([0010 says “The controller comprises an automatic speech recognition (ASR) engine and at least one code plug (CPG).”).
However, King does not teach: a diagnostic server, a controller configured to store diagnostic information associated with the operation of the at least one application, determine a trigger event, and communicate the diagnostic information to the diagnostic server via the BBR based upon the trigger event.
Secades teaches:
a diagnostic server ([0049] says “Module may generate a report containing pertinent parameters for the trigger condition and may forward the report to processor for transmission to diagnostic monitoring server and/or other network entities.”)
a controller configured to:
store diagnostic information associated with the operation of the at least one application ([0049] says “Module may parse (e.g., in real-time) the log messages and event messages received from modem to obtain different parameters for the radio connection, the data session, etc. Module may group the different parameters and store them in the input buffer.”)
determine a trigger event ([0049] says “Module may detect for trigger conditions, which may include dropped call, PPP failure, call termination, failure to establish radio connection, failure to establish data connection, failure to acquire radio frequency (RF) lock or channel assignment, loss of sync channel or paging channel, etc. The trigger conditions typically denote abnormal conditions for wireless device.”)
and communicate the diagnostic information to the diagnostic server via the BBR based upon the trigger event ([0049] says “Whenever a trigger condition is detected, module may collect parameters that are stored in the input buffer and associated with the trigger condition to obtain a snapshot of the current radio and network conditions. Module may generate a report containing pertinent parameters for the trigger condition and may forward the report to processor for transmission to diagnostic monitoring server and/or other network entities.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the communications system of King with the teaching of Secades to obtain the claimed invention. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to combine the functions of each element claimed into one system, each element performing the same function as it does separately.
As per claim 7, King in view of Secades teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. The combination also teaches: wherein the trigger event comprises at least one of user input corresponding to an event associated with operation of the at least one application, a user-settable trigger event associated with operation of the LMR, and a user-settable trigger event associated with operation of the at least one application ([0043 says “Event messages may be sent when triggered by events and may be enabled by a configuration message. Each event message may provide a specific set of parameters when triggered by a specific event, which may be expiration of a timer, a parameter value crossing a threshold, etc. Modem 210 may provide event messages in an asynchronous manner as events occur.” and [0065] says “Diagnostic monitoring module 220 may generate reports whenever certain trigger conditions occur, e.g., when certain event messages are received from modem 210. The last column of Table 8 lists the report(s) that may be generated for each event message.”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Secades as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Beghini et al. US 9161386 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Beghini).
As per claim 2, King in view of Secades teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, the combination does not teach a housing carrying the LMR, BBR, and controller.
Beghini teaches a housing carrying the LMR, BBR, and controller (Col 2. Lines 3-15, says “According to another aspect, the invention concerns a method for operating a hybrid land mobile radio. The method includes establishing an LMR communication link using an LMR transceiver disposed in a portable radio housing. The LMR communication link is implemented using an LMR communications protocol on one or more LMR frequency bands. In the same hybrid land mobile radio, two or more separate antennas are used to establish an LTE communication link using an LTE transceiver. The LTE communication link is implemented using an LTE communication protocol on one more LTE frequency bands. At least one of the separate antennas used for LTE is a first embedded antenna disposed within the portable radio housing.” and Col 5. Lines 18-21, says “Also disposed within the portable radio housing are frequency conversion circuits, digital processing circuits, user interface circuits, audio circuits, and a control processor.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the communications system of King as modified by Secades with the teaching of Beghini to obtain the claimed invention. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to protect the internal components from outside elements such as water and debris.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Secades as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Rottmoser et al. US 2022/0059949 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Rottmoser) and Anderson et al. US 2013/0170439 A1.
As per claim 3, King in view of Secades teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, the combination does not teach: a first housing carrying the LMR, a second housing carrying the BBR, a wireless communications link between the LMR and the BBR.
Rottmoser teaches: a first housing carrying the LMR, a second housing carrying the BBR (FIG. 10 and [0080] teach two housing modules.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the communications system of King as modified by Secades with the teaching of Rottmoser to obtain the claimed invention. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to divide the housing for each component to better identify the location of each component and to silo functionalities.
King in view of Secades and in view of Rottmoser doesn’t teach: a wireless communications link between the LMR and the BBR.
Anderson teaches: a wireless communications link between the LMR and the BBR ([0030] says “Referring now to FIG. 3, a system 300 for mitigating interference between user equipment of geographically co-located and spectrally distinct wireless networks is shown. More particularly, a first network 322 (e.g., an LMR network) includes a base station 302 and one or more mobile stations (MS) 314. As shown, one such mobile station is located in a public safety vehicle 308. A second network 324 (e.g., an LTE network) includes a base station 310 and one or more mobile stations (user equipment (UE)) 312. In an embodiment, first mobile station 314 communicates with (e.g., is connected) to second mobile device (UE) 312 through a data link 347 that may be, for example, a dedicated wired or wireless data link such as a communication link compliant with a Bluetooth.TM. standard, universal serial bus (USB), or other suitable communications link. In this way, the two mobile devices may be regarded as collaborating radios.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the communications system of King as modified by Secades and Rottmoser with the teaching of Anderson to obtain the claimed invention. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to allow the LMR and the BBR to communicate with each other despite being separated physically by their respective housing.
As per claim 4, King in view of Secades, Rottmoser, and Anderson teaches the limitations of claim 3 as discussed above. This combination also teaches: wherein the wireless communications link comprises a Bluetooth link ( Anderson [0030] says “In an embodiment, first mobile station 314 communicates with (e.g., is connected) to second mobile device (UE) 312 through a data link 347 that may be, for example, a dedicated wired or wireless data link such as a communication link compliant with a Bluetooth.TM. standard, universal serial bus (USB), or other suitable communications link. In this way, the two mobile devices may be regarded as collaborating radios.”).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Secades as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Boquist et al. US 11074342 B1 (hereinafter referred to as Boquist).
As per claim 5, King in view of Secades teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, the combination does not teach wherein the controller is configured to scrub the diagnostic information for identifying information prior to communicating the diagnostic information.
Boquist teaches: wherein the controller is configured to scrub the diagnostic information for identifying information prior to communicating the diagnostic information (Col 14. Lines 22-32, says “Transmission by the first device 20 may trigger electronic processor 44 to implement the processes of the scanning/scrubbing environment 80 to scan and otherwise treat the subject file for sensitive data prior to or simultaneously with its delivery to the second device 30. The scanning and/or scrubbing performed according to computer-implemented method 100 may therefore be performed without the knowledge of the source or destination devices, in certain embodiments. It is also foreseen that the scanning and/or scrubbing may be performed at the request of the destination and/or source devices”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the communications system of King as modified by Secades with the teaching of Boquist to obtain the claimed invention. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to wipe confidential information or PII contained in the diagnostic information stored by the controller.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Secades as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Reddy et al. US 2011/0153426 A1 (hereinafter referred to as Reddy).
As per claim 6, King in view of Secades teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, the combination does not teach wherein the controller is configured to determine a communication quality of the BBR and communicate the diagnostic information upon the communication quality exceeding a quality threshold.
Reddy teaches: wherein the controller is configured to determine a communication quality of the BBR and communicate the diagnostic information upon the communication quality exceeding a quality threshold ([0078] says “In at least some implementations, advertisement module 960 may identify a communication quality between mobile device 930 and the communication network, and send the advertisement report that includes the advertisement activity information via the communication network if a communication quality of the communication network exceeds a threshold communication quality. For example, mobile device 930 may send the advertisement report to personal computer 920 or advertisement server 910. Advertisement module 960 may delay sending the advertisement report if the communication quality does not exceed the threshold communication quality.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the communications system of King as modified by Secades with the teaching of Reddy to obtain the claimed invention. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to ensure that the connection between the BBR and diagnostic server is reliable enough to transfer the diagnostic information.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over King in view of Secades as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McRae US 2006/0221917 A1 (hereinafter referred to as McRae).
As per claim 6, King in view of Secades teaches the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. However, the combination does not teach wherein the BBR comprises one of a cellular radio and a WiFi radio.
McRae teaches: wherein the BBR comprises one of a cellular radio and a WiFi radio ([0002] says “Dual mode devices, such as dual mode handsets, PDAs, laptops, and other mobile wireless devices, have a cellular radio transceiver for access to a carrier's radio access network (RAN) and a wireless fidelity (WiFi) radio transceiver for access to a wireless local area network (LAN). Many service providers and wireless carriers are planning to deploy these dual mode devices to customers so they can utilize WiFi networks when available and fill in gaps between WiFi networks using the cellular network.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention by the applicant to modify the communications system of King as modified by Secades with the teaching of McRae to obtain the claimed invention. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would be to ensure that the BBR has access to a higher data rate whether it be from a WLAN connection or a cellular network connection.
Claim 9 which is similar in scope to claims [1,2],
Claim 10 which is similar in scope to claims [1,2,5],
Claim 11 which is similar in scope to claims [1,2,6],
Claim 12 which is similar in scope to claims [1,2,7],
Claim 13 which is similar in scope to claims [1,2,8],
Claim 14 which is similar in scope to claims [1,2,3],
Claim 15 which is similar in scope to claims [1,2,3,4],
Claim 16 which is similar in scope to claims [1,2,3,5],
Claim 17 which is similar in scope to claims [1,2,3,6],
Claim 18 which is similar in scope to claims [1,2,3,7],
Claim 19 which is similar in scope to claims [1,2,3,8],
Claim 20 which is similar in scope to claim [1],
Claim 21 which is similar in scope to claims [1,2],
Claim 22 which is similar in scope to claims [1,3],
Claim 23 which is similar in scope to claims [1,5],
Claim 24 which is similar in scope to claims [1,6],
and Claim 25 which is similar in scope to claims [1,7] are thus rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 for being obvious variations of the above discussed claims. Combining the elements of the similar claims leads to predictable results.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Makkiya et al. (US 2019/0052522 A1) teaches a control unit for a vehicle that generates logs and wirelessly transmits these logs to a diagnostic server.
Kuehner (US 2015/0057040 A1) teaches a communications system comprising a controller that manages communication between LMR devices and LTE devices.
Zhang et al. (US 2006/0156347 A1) teaches two radio access networks that have two different data transfer rates.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINCENT JOSEPH S GUEVARA whose telephone number is (571)270-7184. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 5 PM.
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, Abderrahim Merouan can be reached at (571) 270-5254. 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.
/V.S.G./Examiner, Art Unit 2683
/ABDERRAHIM MEROUAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2683
