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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 4/15/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 18-20 under §112(b) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Furman et al. (US 8,081,722, cited in the IDS).
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.
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Furman et al. (US 8,081,722, cited in the IDS, hereinafter “Furman”).
Regarding claim 17, Furman discloses a receiving method for a transceiver comprising:
receiving a full band signal corresponding to an entire frequency band (RF signals input 57, includes both wideband communications signal and one or more narrowband waveform signals in the same channel and frequency band as the wideband signal, see Figs. 3-4, col. 6, ll. 3-24); and
separating the full band signal to provide a full spectrum signal corresponding to the entire frequency band and a first sub-band signal corresponding to a first portion the entire frequency band (splitter circuit 58, Fig. 3, wideband signal channel 59a with wideband demodulator 62 and narrowband signal channel 59b with narrowband demodulator(s) 64, col. 6, ll. 25-41; see also Fig. 4 with wideband signal 72 and narrowband signal 70);
wherein the transceiver is operative to output a signal of interest in accordance with an open standard protocol (this subject matter is not given patentable weight since this language does not require steps to be performed, and rather appears to simply express an intended result of the process step(s), see MPEP 2111.04; see also reference to NATO standard STANAG 4539, col. 14, ll. 8-21).
Furman does not expressly disclose in a single embodiment, simultaneously transmitting the full spectrum signal and the first sub-band signal to a multi-function processor.
However, Furman further discloses the output of demodulators 62 and 64 go on to further data processing in Fig. 3, and in the context of receiver 393 (Fig. 8), the output of demodulator 394b is output to de-interleaving 394c and decoding 394d. Furman also teaches that the disclosed functions may be implemented as computer program instructions in a processor, col. 4, ll. 4-31). Thus Furman suggests further processing demodulated outputs using a processor programed for multiple functions.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time the application was filed, to specify transmitting both wideband and narrowband signals (i.e. “full-spectrum signal” and “first sub-band signal”) to a multi-functional processor, since this already suggested by other implementations and teaching disclosed in Furman.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-16 are allowed.
Claims 18-20 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID S HUANG whose telephone number is (571)270-1798. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., EST.
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, Hannah Wang can be reached at (571) 272-9018. 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.
/David S Huang/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631 6/26/2026
Prosecution Insights