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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2-6-2025 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 2 objected to because of the following informalities: The last paragraph of claim 1 appear to be an incomplete sentence and claim 2 contains the phrase “is provided is used”. 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 and 10-16 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims1-7 and 10-17 respectively of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,052. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they both provide for identical methods using identical hardware. The patent uses the phrase “sweep steps” which the application uses “sweeping”. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the number of sweep steps limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Claim 9 in this application is given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2014/0320335, published October 30, 2014 in view of Liu, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0269744, filed August 6, 20200
As per claims 1 and 9, Lee discloses a method for synchronous dual band radio frequency signal acquisition and source location, the method comprising:
providing a steerable phased array antenna including: a first antenna element array operable in a first radio frequency band; and a second antenna element array operable in a second radio frequency band (Lee, ¶42);
wherein, the steerable phased array antenna produces a steerable antenna beam (Lee, ¶43 using virtual steering);
defining a target area (Lee, ¶40 perimeter to monitor);
sweeping the target area with the antenna beam while frequency time division multiplexing radio frequency signal transmissions from the first antenna element and the second antenna element (Lee, ¶47).
Lee fails to explicitly disclose using frequency time division multiplexing.
Liu teaches frequency time division multiplexing (¶86).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use frequency time division multiplexing in order to gain the benefit of efficient bandwidth sharing during transmission.
As per claim 2, Lee as modified by Liu further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein signal data obtained from the steerable phased array antenna is provided is used for signal location (Lee, ¶45).
As per claim 3, Lee as modified by Liu further discloses the method of claim 2, wherein signals from one or more pseudo emitters are filtered via a multipath ambiguity module (Lee, ¶50).
As per claim 4, Lee as modified by Liu further discloses the method of claim 3, wherein a location of a signal along the antenna beam is calculated by a phase ranging module (Lee, ¶42).
As per claim 5, Lee as modified by Liu further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein signal data obtained from the steerable phased array antenna is transmitted out of the system (Lee, ¶56).
As per claims 6 and 11, Lee as modified by Liu further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein radio frequency signaling in the first radio frequency band is Bluetooth and/or Bluetooth Low Energy protocol and radio frequency signaling in the second radio frequency band is back scatter modulation protocol for passive RFID (Liu, ¶161).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made, to contrive any number of desirable ranges for the frequency range limitation disclosed by Applicant, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
As per claim 7, Lee as modified by Liu further discloses the method of claim 6, wherein the Bluetooth and/or Bluetooth Low Energy signaling is associated with a portable electronic device of a human user (Lee, ¶3 using a personal radar which is portable as it can be placed in different spots).
As per claim 8, Lee as modified by Liu further discloses the method of claim 1, wherein: the frequency time division multiplexing of radio frequency signaling in the first and the second frequency bands is operative only upon the transmission of radio frequency signals, the frequency time division multiplexing configured to alternate radio frequency signal transmissions within each of the first and second frequency bands so that radio frequency signal transmission only occurs in one of the first and the second frequency bands at a time (Lee, ¶31 and Liu, ¶86).
As per claim 10, Lee as modified by Liu further discloses the dual band radio frequency signal acquisition and source location system of claim 9 wherein said interleaving comprises frequency time division multiplexing (Liu, ¶86).
As per claim 12, Lee as modified by Liu further discloses the dual band radio frequency signal acquisition and source location system of claim 9, wherein the first radio frequency band is 2.4 Ghz and the second radio frequency band is 900 Mhz (Lee, ¶31).
As per claim 13, Lee as modified by Liu further discloses the dual radio frequency signal acquisition and source location system of claim 9, wherein the frequency time division multiplexing is configured to operate upon an antenna beam with a common directional angle for both of the first and the second frequency bands (Liu, ¶86 and Lee, Fig. 1 where the direction for both frequencies is the same).
As per claim 14, Lee as modified by Liu further discloses the dual band radio frequency signal acquisition and source location system of claim 9, wherein the steerable phased array antenna includes a first array of antenna elements dimensioned for operation in the first radio frequency band and a second array of antenna elements dimensioned for operation in the second radio frequency band (Lee, Fig. 4B).
As per claim 15, Lee as modified by Liu further discloses the dual band radio frequency signal acquisition and source location system of claim 14, further including: a first antenna control unit controller electrically connected to the digital signal processor; and a first element driver circuit and a first polarity switching circuit electrically connected inline between the first antenna control unit controller and the first array of antenna elements (Lee, Fig. 4B).
As per claim 16, Lee as modified by Liu further discloses the dual band radio frequency signal acquisition and source location system of claim 9, further including an antenna interface controller electrically connected to the digital signal processor; the antenna interface controller configured to transmit data to and receive instructions from outside of the dual band radio frequency signal acquisition and source location system (Lee, ¶56 providing for outside communication).
The examiner submits it is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine how to utilize the external communications.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights