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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter.
The claims are drawn to a “computer readable medium”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium (also called machine readable medium and other such variations) typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent (or lacks an explicit definition). See MPEP § 2111.01. When the broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim covers a signal per se, the claim must be rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
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.
Claim 1 feature “measure isolation in the plurality of communication channels” lack clarity. It is not clear which components of a communication channel (which typically comprises antenna, radio, frequency band), isolation measurement is applied to. Claims 10 and 17 are subjected to the same rejection for reciting identical feature. Same rejection applies to other claims because of their dependency on the above rejected claims.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 SVENDSEN; Simon et al US 20230417869 A1, hereinafter SVENDSEN.
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 isolation in the plurality of communication channels while the plurality of communication channels are operating This limitation is understood, in line with the Spec, measuring antenna isolation associated with channels, and selecting an antenna with highest isolation. Chrisikos [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 antenna with best isolation. Antennas are known to be associated with channels); and
Chrisikos does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, SVENDSEN teaches, performing radar detection application with high isolation antenna channel as recited in the limitation perform radar detection over the channel having highest isolation (SVENDSEN [52] “Different antenna array configurations (i.e., different phase shifting for different antenna elements) may be employed in the two sequential measurements to optimize the isolation, as will be described in connection with FIGS. 4, 6A, 6B and 6C”, [77] “Said beamforming procedure may be specifically optimized to ensure high isolation between the plurality of antenna elements 344 to 347, 349 to 351 performing the beamforming and said at least one (radar sensor) antenna element 348, as will be described in connection with FIGS. 4, 5, 6A, 6B, 6C, 7A and 7B.”).
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 SVENDSEN above for efficient solutions for dynamically detecting the proximity of the user to an antenna array of a UE (SVENDSEN [0002]).
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 SVENDSEN, 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 channel having 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 SVENDSEN, 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 SVENDSEN, 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 the 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 SVENDSEN, teaches the apparatus, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1.
SVENDSEN further teaches, wherein the radar detection includes proximity sensing (SVENDSEN [102] “the solutions according to embodiments provide high isolation between the feed ports used for beamforming and the one(s) used for radar-like proximity sensing”, [0105] “As described above, an antenna array with an orientationally aligned radar sensor antenna element may require two sequential measurements using two different beamforming configurations to obtain the needed isolation towards the two polarizations of the aligned radar sensor antenna element.”, teaching radar like proximity sensing technique with isolation measurements).
Regarding claim 8, Chrisikos, in view of SVENDSEN, 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 SVENDSEN, teaches the apparatus/CRM, as outlined in the rejection of claim 1 and 10.
Chrisikos further teaches, wherein the plurality of communication channels includes WiFi 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 SVENDSEN, 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 SVENDSEN, teaches the device, as outlined in the rejection of claim 17.
Chrisikos and SVENDSEN 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 SVENDSEN 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.
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
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