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 December 5, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding Sun (US 2024/0381298), applicant asserts that:
“The Office Action refers to Sun Fig. 1 to demonstrate a monolithic device. In the disclosure, Fig. 1 is instead referred to as an architectural diagram, not a structural diagram, and terms like monolithic are not found.
The Action also refers to paragraph [0078] to demonstrate that "the narrowband communication module and UWB module are integrated in a same chip". The paragraph discloses that "Certainly, the UWB module and the narrowband communication module may alternatively be integrated into one apparatus or chip" but that does not mean it is monolithic. Applicant's previous response pointed out that
"A chip in this context does not refer to a single piece of silicon, to which the separate components are individually directly bonded, but at least two chips packaged together. Each of these may be packaged together by bonding to an additional chip, but at least three separate pieces of silicon will then be present (the die count will be at least three in this case)."”
The examiner, however, disagrees.
Monolithic is defined by dictionary.com as “of or relating to an integrated circuit formed in a single circuit”.
Sun, at paragraph [0078], discloses that the narrowband communication module and UWB module are integrated in a same chip. Therefore, Sun discloses a monolithic combined transceiver.
For the foregoing reasons, the examiner contends that the rejections to claims are proper.
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.
Claims 1, 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun (US 2024/0381298) in view of Jalloul (US 2017/0064655), and Thakkar (US 2023/0061672).
As to claim 1, Sun discloses a monolithic combined transceiver (see figure 1) comprising: at least one narrowband transceiver (see legends “Narrowband communication module”), and at least one ultra wideband transceiver (see legends “UWB module”), wherein the monolithic combined transceiver is implemented on a continuous piece of a semiconductor (see paragraph [0078] which discloses that the narrowband communication module and UWB module are integrated in a same chip).
Sun fails to disclose that (i) the at least one narrowband transceiver and the at least one ultra wideband transceiver share a common crystal, wherein the common crystal is used for stable frequency control, and (ii) a continuous single piece of silicon implements all functionalities of the combined transceiver.
With respect to claimed limitations (i), Jalloul discloses that a plurality of transceiver chips RFICs 204, 206 (see at least figure 2) share a common crystal 208, wherein the common crystal is used for stable frequency control (see paragraphs [0028], [0037]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Jalloul to the combined transceiver as taught by Sun, in order to yield predictable results such as reducing the weight, size, and implementing cost of the combined transceiver.
With respect to claimed limitations (ii), Thakkar discloses that a continuous single piece of silicon implements all functionalities of a transceiver 100 (see paragraph [0037], lines 1-3). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Thakkar to the combined transceiver as taught by Sun, in order to yield predictable results such as reducing the weight, size, and implementing cost of the combined transceiver.
As to claim 7, Sun discloses that the at least one ultra wideband transceiver is configured to use impulse type signalling. See paragraph [0081].
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Jalloul, and Thakkar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ho (US 2023/0155631).
As to claim 3, Sun fails to disclose the at least one narrowband and ultra wideband radio transceivers operate from a common voltage supply. Ho discloses that at least one narrowband and ultra wideband radio transceivers operate from a common voltage supply 130. See figure 5A, paragraphs [0015], [0043]. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Ho to Sun, in order to yield predictable results such as reduce the weight, size, and implementing cost of the combined transceiver.
Claims 4, 8-11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Jalloul, and Thakkar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Barras (US 2024/0241246).
As to claim 4, Sun fails to disclose that the at least one narrowband transceiver is configured to use a BLE protocol and the at least one ultra wideband transceiver is scheduled in time slots that are not used by the BLE protocol. Barras discloses that the at least one narrowband transceiver is configured to use a BT protocol (see paragraph [0004]) and the at least one ultra wideband transceiver (see paragraphs [0004], [0121]) is scheduled in the time slots that are not used by the BT protocol (see at least figure 16 which shows the at least one ultra wideband transceiver is scheduled in the time slots SLB2, SLB3 which are not used by the BT protocol (see legends ANB)). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Barras to Sun, in order to yield predictable results such as reducing signal interference.
The combination of Sun and Barras fails to disclose that the BT protocol is a BLE protocol. The examiner, however, takes Official Notice that such a BLE protocol is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Sun and Barras, such that a BLE is used, in order to yield predictable results such as lower power consumption.
As to claim 8, Sun fails to disclose that the at least one ultra wideband transceiver is configured to operate in a 4.5 to 12 GHz frequency range. Barras discloses that at least one ultra wideband transceiver is configured to operate in the 4.5 to 12 GHz frequency range. See paragraph [0024]. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Barras to Sun, in order to yield predictable results such as providing multiple uses in communications.
As to claim 9, Sun fails to disclose that the at least one narrowband transceiver and the at least one ultra wideband transceiver share a common digital control to arbitrate access to an antenna. Barras discloses that at least one narrowband and ultra wideband radio transceivers share a common digital control 13 (see at least figure 7, paragraphs [0148], [0149]) to arbitrate access to an antenna 11. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Barras to Sun, in order to yield predictable results such as lowering implementing cost.
As to claim 10, Sun fails to disclose that an operator for operating the at least one narrowband and ultra wideband transceiver in an one of, interleaved or in parallel mode depending on a chosen algorithm. Barras discloses at least in figure 16 that the at least one ultra wideband transceiver is scheduled in the time slots SLB2, SLB3 which are not used by the one narrow band transceiver (see legends ANB)). Therefore, Barras discloses the claimed limitations “the monolithic combined transceiver further comprises means for operating the at least one narrow band and ultra wideband transceiver in an interleaved or in parallel mode depending on a chosen algorithm”. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Barras to Sun, in order to yield predictable results such as reducing signal interference.
As to claim 11, Sun fails to disclose that the at least one narrowband and ultra wideband transceivers share a common antenna pin. Baras discloses that at least one narrowband and ultra wideband transceivers share a common antenna pin (see figure 7 which shows a common node coupled to a shared antenna 11). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Barras to Sun, in order to yield predictable results such as lowering implementing cost.
As to claim 13, Sun fails to disclose that the at least one narrowband transceiver and ultra wideband transceiver are configured for a signal bandwidth ratio equal to or more than 25 times. Barras discloses that at least one narrowband transceiver and ultra wideband transceiver are configured for a signal bandwidth ratio equal to or more than 25 times. See paragraph [0087] which discloses that a signal bandwidth ratio of 500 MHz to 5 MHz is equal to 100 times which is more than 25 times. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Barras to Sun, in order to yield predictable results such as further reducing signal interference.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Jalloul, and Thakkar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Mueck (US 2021/0385865).
As to claim 5, Sun fails to disclose that the at least one narrowband transceiver is configured to use an IEEE 802.15.4 protocol having SIFS/LIFS slots. Mueck discloses that at least one narrowband transceiver is configured to use an IEEE 802.15.4 protocol having SIFS/LIFS slots (see paragraphs [0230], [0381], [0433]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Mueck to Sun, in order to yield predictable results such as low cost, low-power consumption between devices.
The combination of Sun and Mueck fails to further disclose that the at least one ultra wideband transceiver is scheduled in the SIFS/LIFS slots. Those skilled in the art would recognize that these claimed limitations do not involve any inventive concept. They merely depend on arbitrary channel resources to be scheduled by the at least one ultra wideband transceiver. In addition, the specification of the instant application fails to disclose any unexpected results obtained from the fact that the at least one ultra wideband transceiver is scheduled in the SIFS/LIFS slots. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the combination of Sun and Mueck as claimed, in order to reduce communication bandwidths required by the combined transceiver.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Jalloul, and Thakkar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nafie (US 2006/0215795).
As to claim 6, Sun fails to disclose that the at least one narrowband transceiver is configured to operate in at least one of the ISM bands 433, 868, 915 or 2400 MHz. Nafie discloses that at least one narrowband transceiver is configured to operate in at least one of the ISM bands 433, 868, 915 or 2400 MHz (see paragraph [0012]). Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Nafie to Sun, in order to yield predictable results such as allowing scientific, medical, and industrial devices to access the RF spectrum without competing with the communications and defense sectors.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Jalloul, and Thakkar as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hwang (US 2024/0072444).
As to claim 12, Sun fails to disclose that the at least one narrowband transceiver is configured to transmit on one of, a TX pin or another pin, while the at least one ultra wideband transceiver is configured to receive on an opposite pin of the one of, the another pin or the TX pin. Hwang discloses that at least one narrow band radio transceiver BLE is configured to transmit on one of, a TX pin 180 or another pin, while the at least one ultra wideband radio transceiver UWB is configured to receive on an opposite pin 150 of the one of, the another pin or the TX pin. See at least paragraphs [0106], [0107]. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the above teaching of Hwang to Sun, in order to yield predictable results such as reducing signal interference.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lindoff (US 2023/0318655) discloses sharing a common crystal oscillator (see paragraphs [0070], [0158], [0160]).
Cai (US 8,572,295) discloses implementing a RF transceiver on a single monolithic piece of silicon (see column 1 lines 25-29).
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571) 272-4177. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646