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 Amendment
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s reply, filed on 07/14/2026 and 05/26/2026, to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 02/25/2026.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5-6 and 9-18 are amended. Claims 1-20 are pending and addressed below.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome rejection under USC 101 and USC 112(b), previously set forth in the non-final office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 10 and 17 feature “measure antenna isolation between the at least two antennas in at least one communication channel” lacks clarity. It is not clear whether “at least two antennas” are transmit antennas, receive antennas or combination. Spec e.g., para [61] discloses measuring isolation between transmit antenna and receive antenna of a communication channel, which is the essence of the invention. Same rejection applies to other claims because of their dependency on the above rejected claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 1-3, 5, 7-12, 14, and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chrisikos; George et al US 20110249760 A1, hereinafter Chrisikos, in view of NPL, IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON COGNITIVE COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKING, VOL. 8, NO. 2, JUNE 2022, A Dual-Function Massive MIMO Uplink OFDM Communication and Radar Architecture, hereinafter NPL.
Regarding claims 1, 10 and 17, Chrisikos teaches, an apparatus comprising:
at least two antennas configured to communicate over a plurality of communication channels (Chrisikos Fig. 4 showing multiple antennas for different channels such as WLAN, WWAN etc.); and
processing circuitry coupled to the at least two antennas and configured to:
measure antenna isolation between the at least two antennas in at least one communication channel of the plurality of communication channels (This limitation is understood, in line with the Spec, measuring antenna isolation associated with communication channels, and selecting a channel with highest antenna isolation. Chrisikos [0085] “Pair-wise isolation measurements may be obtained for different pairs of antennas on wireless device 110. The pair-wise isolation measurement for each antenna pair may be obtained by exciting one antenna in the pair and measuring the coupling to the other antenna in the pair… In general, a test signal may be applied to one transmit antenna at a time, and the impact on the remaining M-1 receive antennas may be measured.”, teaches isolation measurement between a transmit antenna and receive antenna of a radio (i.e., at least two antennas of a communication channel). A radio is known to establish a communication channel (see Fig.1, para [28]);
[0105] “In general, antennas may be selected for use and assigned to radios based on various performance metrics such as isolation between antennas, …”, [140] “In one design, the measurements for the plurality of antennas may be obtained based on signals generated within the wireless device and applied to selected ones of the plurality of antennas, e.g., as shown in FIGS. 9 and 10. In another design, the measurements may be obtained based on signals received on the plurality of antennas. In one design, the measurements may be obtained for different sets of antennas formed with the plurality of antennas. In another design, the measurements may be obtained for individual antennas.”, [141] “In one design, measurements for isolation between antennas in different pairs of antennas formed with the plurality of antennas may be obtained, e.g., as shown in FIG. 9.”, [142] “In one design of block 1316, a pair of antennas with the best isolation among different pairs of antennas may be selected.”, teaches measuring and selecting transmit and receive antennas with best isolation for a radio of a communication channel).
Chrisikos does not expressly teach, communication channel or associated radio with the beast antenna isolation is used in radar mode as recited in “while the plurality of communication channels are operating in a radar mode; perform radar detection over the communication channel having the highest antenna isolation”. Radar mode is understood, in line with the Spec, as sensing or detection.
However, in the same field of endeavor, NPL teaches, communication channel or associated radio with the beast antenna isolation is used in radar mode as recited in “while the plurality of communication channels are operating in a radar mode; perform radar detection over the communication channel having the highest antenna isolation” (NPL page 1, col 2 “Consequently, 5G and beyond mobile network architectures are envisaged to provide communication as well as radar sensing capabilities… various methods to enable dual-function radar and communication (RadCom) platforms using the same time-frequency resources on the same platform”; page 4, col 1 “Since the radar transmit antennas operate at the same time as the M receive antennas for data communication and radar returns, direct-coupling occurs between the closely located transmit and receive antennas. An adequately designed antenna array can provide 80 dB antenna isolation “; page 4, col 2 “For instance, the direct-coupling gain with a satisfactory isolation in the RF domain between the transmit and
receive antennas was measured as Λm,q [dB] = −70 dB “; page 10, col 1-2 “An excellent RF and antenna isolation between the radar transmit antennas and antenna array elements along with a decent baseband digital SI canceller will therefore maximize the performance of the RadCom system in terms of achievable sum-rate and radar detection”, teaches maximizing antenna isolation for radar detection purpose).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chrisikos to include the features as taught by NPL above to achieve a joint uplink massive multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) communication and orthogonal frequency-division multiplexing (OFDM) radar sensing (NPL Abstract).
With respect to claim 10, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a corresponding a computer-readable medium. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
With respect to claim 17, claim recites the identical features of claim 1 for a similar device. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection. Chrisikos further recites, device comprising: a display screen (see Chrisikos [31] “Wireless device 110 may be … a laptop computer, …”, laptop comprises a display screen).
Regarding claims 2, 11 and 18, Chrisikos, in view of NPL, teaches the apparatus/CRM/device, as outlined in the rejection of claims 1, 10 and 17.
Chrisikos further teaches, wherein the processing circuitry is further configured to: responsive to detecting a reduction in isolation in the selected communication channel, resume measurement of isolation in the plurality of communication channels to select a different communication channel having another highest isolation among the plurality of communication channels (Chrisikos [103] “In another design, antenna selection may be performed based on dynamic measurements in order to improve performance in light of changing operating conditions. In one design, isolation measurements may be obtained for antennas 210 periodically or whenever triggered. A trigger may occur due to a change in the set of active radios, degradation in performance, etc.” teaching, performing isolation measurements again when degradation in performance occurs, implying when isolation is reduced).
Regarding claims 3, 12 and 19, Chrisikos, in view of NPL, teaches the apparatus/CRM/device, as outlined in the rejection of claims 2, 11 and 18.
Chrisikos further teaches, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to refrain from resuming measurement if the reduction is within a threshold (Chrisikos [135] “A determination may be made whether the performance of the set of active radios is acceptable (block 1216). If the answer is `Yes`, then the process may return to block 1214 to continue to monitor the throughput and/or other performance metrics used for antenna selection. Otherwise, if the performance is not acceptable, then isolation and/or correlation measurements for available antennas may be obtained, e.g., in real time …”, suggesting no isolation measurement is needed when performance is acceptable, implying isolation reduction affecting the performance is still within an acceptable limit).
Regarding claims 5, and 14, Chrisikos, in view of NPL, teaches the apparatus/CRM, as outlined in the rejection of claims 2 and 11.
Chrisikos further teaches, wherein the processing circuitry is configured to terminate resumption of measurement if a channel is found having an isolation value above a threshold (see Chrisikos [135] and the explanation in the rejection of claim 3 above).
Regarding claim 7, Chrisikos, in view of NPL, teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
NPL further teaches, wherein the radar detection includes proximity sensing (NPL page 1, col 2 “sensing the surroundings”).
Regarding claim 8, Chrisikos, in view of NPL, teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claim 7.
Chrisikos further teaches, wherein the apparatus is included in a laptop device (see Fig. 3; Chrisikos [31] “Wireless device 110 may be … a laptop computer, …”).
Regarding claims 9 and 16, Chrisikos, in view of NPL, teaches the apparatus/CRM, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 and 10.
Chrisikos further teaches, wherein the plurality of communication channels includes Wi-Fi channels in at least two of a low band, high band, and ultra high band frequency of operation (Chrisikos Fig. 1, WLAN; [28] teaches WiFi as WLAN, which is know to operate on low, high, and ultra high band (see also Table 1).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chrisikos, in view of NPL, as applied to the rejection of claim 17 above, and further in view of Sengupta; Uttam et al US 20200026342 A1, hereinafter Sengupta.
Regarding claim 20, Chrisikos, in view of NPL, teaches the device, as outlined in the rejection of claim 17.
Chrisikos and NPL do not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, Sengupta teaches, wherein the device comprises a laptop and the processing circuitry is configured to remove power from the display screen upon detecting no user proximity for a time threshold (Sengupta [11] “An electronic user device such as a laptop, a tablet, etc. can transition between different system power states”, [12] “ In the connected standby mode, the display screen of the device is turned off …”, [16] “Example user devices disclosed herein include proximity sensor(s) to detect (1) when a user is present relative to the user device and (2) when an appendage of the user (e.g., an arm, a hand, finger(s)) is proximate to the user device (e.g., moving toward the a display screen of the user device).“, [17] “examples disclosed herein additionally monitor for the presence of appendage(s) of the user proximate to the user device (e.g., over a keyboard, toward the display screen) to confirm that the user intends to use the device before waking the device. If the sensor(s) do not detect the appendage(s) of the user within a threshold period of time of the detection of the presence of the user near the device, examples disclosed herein maintain the user device in the connected standby mode”, teaches laptop screen is turned off based on no user presence and activity within a threshold period of time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Chrisikos and NPL to include the features as taught by Sengupta above in order to provide for low latency wake of the touch controller based on increasing confidence of the occurrence of a touch event at the display screen by progressively increasing the device power state of the touch controller as different levels of user activity relative to the user device are detected (e.g., user presence detection, appendage detection, etc.) (Sengupta [17]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 6, 13 and 15 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 1 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.
Applicant's further arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in Remarks page 8-9 “Chrisikos selects an antenna pair for use by a radio. Chrisikos does not measure antenna isolation between a pair of antennas in a communication channel of a plurality of communication channels while those channels are operating in a radar mode, and does not select a communication channel based on the highest antenna isolation for performing radar detection.
The fundamental purpose of Chrisikos is different. Chrisikos seeks to allocate antennas among different radios for normal communication. The recited apparatus, in contrast, sweeps across the communication channels of a single radio operating in radar mode and selects the communication channel with the highest antenna isolation between the at least two antennas, so that the same antennas can perform radar detection in the selected channel.
Chrisikos accordingly does not teach or suggest the claimed feature of measuring antenna isolation between the at least two antennas in at least one communication channel of the plurality of communication channels while the plurality of communication channels are operating in a radar mode to select a communication channel having highest antenna isolation, and performing radar detection over the selected communication channel.”
However, Examiner respectfully disagrees. Chrisikos measures antenna isolations between different transmit and receive antenna pair, and select the best pair for a particular communication-channel’s radio. These antenna pairs are used for different communication channels. It is similar to measuring antenna isolations of different communication channels of the applicant in order to use a communication channel with associated highest isolation antenna pair. Chrisikos does not teach that highest antenna isolation channel is used for radar detection. However, NPL teaches obtaining a maximum antenna isolation for using a 5G wireless channel for radar detection. Combination of the teachings of Chrisikos and NPL reads on the claims, in the opinion of the Examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
AP; Santhosh US 20230387978 A1 - ANTENNA SWITCHING FOR IMPROVED IN-DEVICE CO-EXISTENCE PERFORMANCE
Sammeta; Rohit US 9369187 B1 - Antenna Switching In An Antenna System
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0232. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST; Friday variable.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3770. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights