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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: Please update the status of the parent application referenced to in the first paragraph of the specification.
The amendment to the specification has been entered.
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 1-18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4, 6-9, 11, 12, 14 and 15 of U.S. Patent No. 12,171,044 in view of Zhang et al US Patent Application Publication No. US20190356546 A1.
As per claim 1 of the instant application, claim 1 of the patent teaches a method for ultra-wideband (UWB) communication on a UWB channel, the method comprising: transmitting, by a first UWB device, an advertisement message through a narrowband (NB) channel; receiving, by the first UWB device, a first message for connection setup through the NB channel, from a second UWB device; and transmitting, by the first UWB device, a second message responding to the first message through the NB channel, to the second UWB device, wherein the second message includes information for communication on a UWB channel, and wherein the UWB channel is one of a plurality of candidate UWB channels for the UWB communication. However, claim 1 of the patent fails to teach the second message includes information indicating that scanning the NB channel is required. Zhang et al, at least at para. [0298], teaches the transmission of a message (DCI) from a first station to another to indicate that scanning of the NB channels is to start or required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to modify claim 1 of the patent to send a message from a first station to another to indicate that scanning of the NB channels is to start or required in order to allow the device to tune in to a desired channel so that communication can be established between the at least the two devices.
As per claim 2 of the instant application, see rejection claim 1. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the instant application is substantially directed and claiming the same invention as claim 1 of the patent. Claim 2 of the instant application therefore is similarly rejected as claim 1 of the instant application.
As per claim 3 of the instant application, claim 4 of the patent teaches
“wherein a bandwidth of the NB channel is different from a bandwidth of the UWB channel”. Claim 3 of the instant application therefore is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 1 of the instant application.
As per claim 4 of the instant application, claim 2 of the patent teaches
wherein the NB channel is a public channel or a private channel set through negotiation with the second UWB device. Claim 4 of the instant application therefore is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 1 of the instant application.
As per claim 5 of the instant application, claim 3 of the patent teaches wherein the advertisement message is periodically broadcast by the first UWB device, and wherein information about a transmission period of the advertisement message is included in the advertisement message. Claim 5 of the instant application therefore is similarly analyzed and rejected as claim 1 of the instant application.
As per claim 6 of the instant application, Claim 6 of the patent teaches a method for ultra-wideband (UWB) communication on a UWB channel, the method comprising: receiving, from a first UWB device, an advertisement message, at a second UWB device, through a narrowband (NB) channel; transmitting, by the second UWB device, a first message for connection setup through the NB channel, to the first UWB device; and receiving, from the first UWB device, a second message responding to the first message, at the second UWB device, through the NB channel, wherein the second message includes information for communication on a UWB channel, and wherein the UWB channel is one of a plurality of candidate UWB channels for the UWB communication. However, claim 6 of the patent fails to teach the second message includes information indicating that scanning the NB channel is required. Zhang et al at least at para. [0298], teaches the transmission of a message (DCI) from a first station to another to indicate that scanning of the NB channels is to start or required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to modify claim 6 of the patent to send a message from a first station to another to indicate that scanning of the NB channels is to start or required in order to allow the device to tune in to a desired channel so that communication can be established between the at least the two devices.
As per claim 7 of the instant application, claim 9 of the patent teaches, wherein a bandwidth of the NB channel is different from a bandwidth of the UWB channel. The claim is further analyzed similarly as claim 6 of the instant application.
As per claim 8 of the instant application, claim 7 of the patent teaches wherein the NB channel is a public channel or a private channel set through negotiation with the second UWB device. The claim is further analyzed similarly as claim 6 of the instant application.
As per claim 9 of the instant application, claim 8 of the patent teaches, wherein the advertisement message is periodically broadcast by the first UWB device, and wherein information about a transmission period of the advertisement message is included in the advertisement message. The claim is further analyzed similarly as claim 6 of the instant application.
As per claim 10 of the instant application, claim 11 of the patent teaches a first ultra-wideband (UWB) device on a UWB channel, the first UWB device comprising: at least one transceiver; and a controller connected to the at least one transceiver, wherein the controller is configured to: transmit an advertisement message through a narrowband (NB) channel, receive a first message for connection setup through the NB channel, from a second UWB device, and transmit a second message responding to the first message through the NB channel, to the second UWB device, wherein the second message includes information for communication on a UWB channel, and wherein the UWB channel is one of a plurality of candidate UWB channels for UWB communication. However, claim 11 of the patent fails to teach the second message includes information indicating that scanning the NB channel is required. Zhang et al, at least at para. [0145], teaches the transmission of a message from a first station to another to indicate that scanning of the NB channels is to start or required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to modify claim 11 of the patent to send a message from a first station to another to indicate that scanning of the NB channels is to start or required in order to allow the device to tune in to a desired channel so that communication can be established between the at least the two devices.
As per claim 11 of the instant application, see rejection of claim 2 of the instant application. In addition, implementing the invention as a device is simply an obvious variant of the method recited in claim 2 instant application.
As per claim 12 of the instant application, claim 12 of the patent teaches wherein a bandwidth of the NB channel is different from a bandwidth of the UWB channel. The claim is analyzed similarly as claim 11 of the instant application.
As per claim 13 of the instant application, see rejection of claim 4 of the instant application. In addition, implementing the invention as a device is simply an obvious variant of the method recited in claim 4 of the instant application.
As per claim 14 of the instant application, see rejection of claim 5 of the instant application. In addition, implementing the invention as a device is simply an obvious variant of the method recited in claim 5 of the instant application.
As per claim 15 of the instant application, claim 14 teaches a second ultra-wideband (UWB) device on a UWB channel, the second UWB device comprising: at least one transceiver; and a controller connected to the at least one transceiver, wherein the controller is configured to: receive, from a first UWB device, an advertisement message through a narrowband (NB) channel, transmit a first message for connection setup through the NB channel, to the first UWB device, and receive, from the first UWB device, a second message responding to the first message through the NB channel, wherein the second message includes information for communication on a UWB channel, and wherein the UWB channel is one of a plurality of candidate UWB channels for UWB communication. However, claim 14 of the patent fails to teach the second message includes information indicating that scanning the NB channel is required. Zhang et al, at least at para. [0145], teaches the transmission of a message from a first station to another to indicate that scanning of the NB channels is to start or required. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skill in the art to modify claim 14 of the patent to send a message from a first station to another to indicate that scanning of the NB channels is to start or required in order to allow the device to tune in to a desired channel so that communication can be established between the at least the two devices.
As per claim 16 of the instant application, claim 15 of the patent teaches wherein a bandwidth of the NB channel is different from a bandwidth of the UWB channel. Claim 16 of the instant application is further analyzed similarly as claim 15 of the instant application.
As per claim 17 of the instant application, see rejection of claim 4 of the instant application. In addition, implementing the invention as a device is simply an obvious variant of the method recited in claim 4 of the instant application.
As per claim 18 of the instant application, see rejection of claim 5 of the instant application. In addition, implementing the invention as a device is simply an obvious variant of the method recited in claim 5 of the instant application.
“A later patent claim is not patentably distinct from an earlier patent claim if the later claim is obvious over, or anticipated by, the earlier claim. In re Longi, 759 F.2d at 896, 225 USPQ at 651 (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting because the claims at issue were obvious over claims in four prior art patents); In re Berg, 140 F.3d at 1437, 46 USPQ2d at 1233 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (affirming a holding of obviousness-type double patenting where a patent application claim to a genus is anticipated by a patent claim to a species within that genus). “ ELI LILLY AND COMPANY v BARR LABORATORIES, INC., United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, ON PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (DECIDED: May 30, 2001).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-18 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JEAN B CORRIELUS whose telephone number is (571)272-3020. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-3:00PM Monday-Thursday.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 571-272-3044. 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.
/JEAN B CORRIELUS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights