DETAILED NON-FINAL OFFICE ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Prior Art Rejections
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 and 10-22 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (US 8,213,867 B2), hereinafter Zhang et al (‘867), in view of Lynch et al (US 8,094,605 B2), hereinafter Lynch et al (‘605).
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of electronic communication systems.
The text of independent claim 1 is as follows:
“1. A mobile communicator comprising: a first communication portion and a second communication portion, wherein the first communication portion and the second communication portion are configured to communicate data directly with one or more satellites; and a controller configured to: compare a first signal associated with use of the first communication portion to communicate data and a second signal associated with use of the second communication portion to communicate data, and based on and/or in response to at least the comparison of the first and second signals, at least temporarily suspend at least some communication via the first communication portion and cause the second communication portion to communicate data.”
Looking, first, to independent claim 1, Zhang et al (‘867) generally discloses, “A mobile communicator” (line 1), noting, for example, column 4 at line 55 (“Mobile”), and, column 6 at lines 56-57 (“in the case of mobile device [sic]”).
On lines 2-4 of claim 1, the claimed “first communication portion” and the claimed “second communication portion” are met by any two of the multiband RF transceivers in Zhang et al (‘867) or their antennas, for example, please see column 4, lines 4-6. However, Zhang et al (‘867) does not meet the limitations, “configured to communicate directly with one or more satellites” (lines 3-4).
Lynch et al (‘605), in the same field of endeavor as Zhang et al (‘867), teaches the use of an arrangement on-board of an aircraft to facilitate direct transmission to and from one or more satellites, noting, for example, column 8, line 63 through column 9, line 5 for the advantage of optimizing the utility of mobile communicators by enabling their use with the “satellite-based communications network” (column 2, lines 32-36).
So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine Lynch et al (‘605) with Zhang et al (‘867) as taught by Lynch et al (‘605) in order to obtain the advantage taught by Lynch et al (‘605), with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The claim 1 “controller configured to …” (lines 5-12) is met by the “one or more baseband processors” in Zhang et al (‘867) of the applied combination, noting, for example, column 4, lines 6 and 15-25. The limitations on lines 6-8 of claim 1 (“compare a first signal associated with use of the first communication portion to communicate data and a second signal associated with use of the second communication portion to communicate data”) is met in Zhang et al (‘867) by the disclosed ranking, for example, as described in column 7 at lines 8-20. The limitations on lines 9-12 of claim 1 (“based on and/or in response to at least the comparison of the first and second signals, at least temporarily suspend at least some communication via the first communication portion and cause the second communication portion to communicate data”) are met in Zhang et al (‘867) of the applied combination by the selecting “the best transmission scenario” according to the ranking, for example, as described in column 7 at lines 45-54.
In that each and every claimed feature in independent claim 1 is plainly present in the applied combination of Zhang et al (‘867) in view of Lynch et al (‘605) as applied above, independent claim 1 is obvious over the applied combination of Zhang et al (‘867) in view of Lynch et al (‘605) as applied above.
The further limitations of dependent claim 2 are substantially-met by the applied combination of Zhang et al (‘867) in view of Lynch et al (‘605) as applied above to independent claim 1 in that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention when there are two “best” scenarios, the two communication portions could be used “at the same time” to optimize the quantity of data transmitted/received.
The further limitations of dependent claim 3 are met by the applied combination of Zhang et al (‘867) in view of Lynch et al (‘605) as applied above to independent claim 1 in that the “first communication portion” would be used alone when it is chosen as the “best transmission scenario.”
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 4, these are met by the applied combination as applied above to independent claim 1 in that Zhang et al (‘867) discloses continuous monitoring of the “transmission performance,” which includes “power” (column 7, lines 59-62) and “quality metrics” (column 7, lines 39-41) as long as the present scenario remains the “best” scenario.
The further limitations of dependent claim 5 are met by the applied combination as applied above to independent claim 1, noting in Zhang et al (‘867), for example, column 3, lines 44-47 and column 3, lines 59-61 (each transceiver covers a different frequency band).
With reference to the further limitations of dependent claim 6, the applied combination of Zhang et al (‘867) in view of Lynch et al (‘605) teaches the use of a variety of bands for the transmitters and receivers generally (e.g., Zhang: column 4, lines 36-37, listing f1, f2, etc.; column 5, lines 16-26; column 16, lines 1-9; Figure 2 showing Bands 1 through n). So, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that any suitable set of bands could be used, including those recited in claim 6, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The further limitations of dependent claim 10 are met by the applied combination as applied above to independent claim 1, noting, for example, column 7, line 67 (continuous monitoring of performance); column 7, lines 39-45; column 6, lines 54-61; and, column 8, lines 1-7.
The further limitations of dependent claim 11 are met by the applied combination as applied above to independent claim 1, noting, for example, that each transceiver comprises at least one antenna (column 3, lines 38-39).
As for the further limitations of dependent claim 12, the limitation of “an airplane” (line 2) is met by the disclosed in Lynch et al (‘605) of the applied combination. Further, in that the applied combination discloses an airplane/aircraft as a vehicle, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to try an “automobile” or a “ship” from the many types of vehicles, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
The remarks with respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 13 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 4. Further, in the continuous monitoring in Zhang et al (‘867) of the applied combination, whenever the “best scenario” changes, the “communication portion” used changes, noting, for example, column 6, lines 56-61; column 7, lines 39-54; and, column 7, line 63 through column 8, line 7.
The remarks with respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 14 are met by the applied combination as applied above to independent claim 1, noting, for example, column 3, line 63 through column 4, line 3 (noting, “common antenna” and “integrated into a single transceiver block”).
The remarks with respect to independent claim 15 are substantially those made above with respect to independent claim 1 in that claim 15 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 1.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 16 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 2 in that claim 16 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 2.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 17 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 3 in that claim 17 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 3.
The remarks with respect to dependent claims 18 and 19 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claims 4 and 13 in that claims 18 and 10 are the method claims corresponding to the apparatus of claims 4 and 13.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 20 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 14 in that claim 20 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 14.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 21 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 12 in that claim 21 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 12.
The remarks with respect to dependent claim 22 are substantially those made above with respect to dependent claim 10 in that claim 22 is the method claim corresponding to the apparatus of claim 10.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Zhang et al (‘867), in view of Lynch et al (‘605), and further in view of Kanagala et al (US 2009/0322551 A1), hereinafter Kanagala et al (‘551).
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
A person of ordinary skill-in-the-art would be a person having a degree in some form of engineering or in physics with several years of practical experience in the design and/or testing of electronic communication systems.
Looking, first, to the further limitations of dependent claims 7-9, the applied combination of Zhang et al (‘867) in view of Lynch et al (‘605) as applied in the previous section of this office action does not deal with frequency bands being associated with geographic regions.
Kanagala et al (‘551) is in the same filed of endeavor as the references of the applied combination of Zhang et al (‘867) in view of Lynch et al (‘605), namely, wireless communications, noting, for example, paragraph [0001] at lines 5-6. Kanagala et al (‘551) generally teaches the use of a memory that contains the operational requirements of particular geographic regions, including “operating frequency range (band),” for the advantages of flexibility and compliance, noting, for example, paragraphs [0028] and [0029]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention from the teachings of Kanagala et al (‘551), in that the applied combination of Zhang et al (‘867) in view of Lynch et al (‘605) has different transmitter/receiver channels with different associated frequencies and antennas, to optimize at least one of the transmitter/receiver channels with the antenna for a frequency band associated with a geographic region in which the device of the applied combination regularly operates for the advantages taught by Kanagala et al (‘551), with a reasonable likelihood of success. Similarly, with respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 8, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention from the teachings of Kanagala et al (‘551), in that the applied combination of Zhang et al (‘867) in view of Lynch et al (‘605) has different transmitter/receiver channels with different associated frequencies and antennas, to optimize at least two of the transmitter/receiver channels with the antenna for frequency bands associated with a geographic region in which the device of the applied combination regularly operates for the advantages taught by Kanagala et al (‘551), with a reasonable likelihood of success. Further, with respect to the further limitations of dependent claim 9, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill-in-the-art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the particular geographic region of operation could be in any region on earth, including those recited in the claim, with a reasonable likelihood of success.
Prior Art of General Interest
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Cordone (‘967) is of general interest for having been considered for double patenting.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNARR E GREGORY whose telephone number is (571)272-6972. The examiner can normally be reached on Mondays through Fridays from 7:30 am to 3:30 pm eastern time.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Vladimir Magloire, can be reached at telephone number 571-270-5144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/BERNARR E GREGORY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648
Prosecution Insights