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 .
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.
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 1-4 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) calculating a scattering matrix. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim simply recites gathering data and calculating a matrix of numbers; there is no computer to perform the calculations. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the mention of a generic “electronic device” simply limits the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Applying the “streamlined analysis” outlined in MPEP §§ 2106.03 et seq. to claim 1, the examiner concedes that claim 1 passes eligibility step 1, as claim 1 is drawn to an apparatus (“electronic device”), which is one of the four statutory classes of subject matter expressly set forth in section 101.
Turning now to eligibility step 2A, namely, does the claim recite an abstract idea, the bulk of the claim is a three paragraph “wherein” clause which recites the steps of gathering data of the performance of the electronic device at two different temperatures1, and using that data to mentally calculate2 a “scattering matrix”. The first two paragraphs after the preamble which recite a generic “temperature sensitive device” (which is any generic circuit, as all electronics are affected by operating temperature), and a generic “calibration kit” (which is another generic circuit element), merely limit the calculation to a specific technological environment (an electronic environment), and do not add any meaningful limitations to the claimed mathematical calculations3.
Claims 2 & 3 mentions generic “impedances”, which is just a redundant reference to the “electronic device” (as all electrical devices inherently have some type of impedance), which merely limit the calculation to a specific technological environment (an electronic environment).
Claim 4 mentions a generic “coupler”, which is just a generic electrical connection between parts of a generic circuit, which is just a redundant reference to the “electronic device”.
Claims 7-11 merely refine the calculation being preformed.
Claims 12-15 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) gathering data and calculating a matrix of numbers. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because there is no machine recited to perform the calculations. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the mention of a generic “electronic device” simply limits the judicial exception to a particular technological environment.
Applying the “streamlined analysis” outlined in MPEP §§ 2106.03 et seq. to claim 12, the examiner concedes that claim 12 passes eligibility step 1, as claim 12 is expressly drawn to a “method”, which is one of the four statutory classes of subject matter expressly set forth in section 101.
Turning now to eligibility step 2A, namely, does the claim recite an abstract idea, the bulk of the claim, namely the last three paragraph, are merely steps of preforming calculations. The first two paragraphs (after the preamble) are simply data gathering steps.
Claims 13 & 14 mentions generic “impedances”, which is just a redundant reference to the “electronic device” (as all electrical devices inherently have some type of impedance), which merely limit the calculation to a specific technological environment (an electronic environment).
Claim 15 mentions a generic “coupler”, which is just a generic electrical connection between parts of a generic circuit, which is just a redundant reference to the “electronic device”.
Claims 18-20 merely refine the calculation being performed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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 1-5, 7-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu (CN 114698404-B). The Hu reference discloses an electronic device (Figs. 1-5) comprising:
a temperature sensitive device (33)4 configured to transmit a desired signal and receive a forward signal and a reverse signal in response to the desired signal5; and
a calibration kit (31), connected to an output port of the temperature sensitive device, configured to provide a switchable impedance6;
wherein:
during a first phase, the electronic device operates in a first temperature, and multiple first calculation results are calculated according to the forward signal and the reverse signal by setting the switchable impedance to be multiple impedances, respectively7; and
wherein a temperature related scattering matrix (S-matrix) of the temperature sensitive device is calibrated according to the multiple first calculation results and the multiple second calculation results8.
The Hu reference does not disclose that during a second phase, the electronic device operates in a second temperature, and multiple second calculation results are calculated according to the forward signal and the reverse signal by setting the switchable impedance to be the multiple impedances, respectively. Hu merely tests the parameters of the system at a room temperature of 25 degrees centigrade.
However, since the Hu reference discloses that the parameters of his device is affected by the ambient temperature, it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to calculate a second scatter matrix based upon an anticipated higher temperature setting, as cell phones often operate at higher than normal temperatures due to overuse, being left in a hot car, etc., and have a built-in temperature sensor to detect elevated operating conditions and to adjust the operating conditions of the device accordingly.
With respect to claims 2 & 3, the impedance matching circuit (31) has adjustable impedances9 built in.
With respect to claim 4, see Figures 4 & 5.
With respect to claim 5, Hu discloses a processor (34) and transceiver (32).
With respect to claims 7-11, the these dependent claims mention the specifics of how a standard scatter matrix is calculated.
The method of use disclosed in claims 12-16 and 18-20 are inherent to the device disclosed.
Conclusion
Claims 6 and 17 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY W GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2103. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
RANDY W. GIBSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2856
/RANDY W GIBSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855
1 Data gathering steps are insignificant extra-solution activity. MPEP § 2106.05(g).
2 MPEP § 2106.04(a)(2), subsection I, subsection C.
3 MPEP § 2106.05(h).
4 “…The first parameter model may be based on a plurality of first reflection coefficients and a plurality of second reflection coefficients measured in advance at a frequency and temperature…”
5 “…the reflection coefficient detector 33 may be a directional coupler, which may be used to acquire the forward coupling signal and the reverse coupling signal of the radio frequency signal on the transmission path. A first reflection coefficient at the coupling point can be determined based on the forward and reverse coupling signals..”
6 “…he impedance matching may be an impedance matching between the radio-frequency front-end module and the antenna 30, and the impedance tuning circuit 31 is coupled between the radio-frequency front-end module and the antenna 30. It is used to ensure that the impedance of the radio frequency front-end module and the impedance of the antenna 30 meet or approach the power matching condition…”
7 “…Exemplary, the portion between the coupling point of the reflection coefficient detector 33 and the entrance of the antenna 30 is a two-port network of fixed parameters when the impedance tuning circuit 31 is in the reference state, i.e. S11, S12, S21 and S22 are fixed. Based on the two-port network transmission characteristics, a first parameter model at the reference operating frequency (for example, the central carrier frequency of the narrowband system) and at room temperature of 25 degrees centigrade is established..”
8 “…The mapping relationship (also referred to as the second parameter model) between the antenna 30 and the corresponding optimal impedance control word at different load values is established in the laboratory environment by means of measurement instrument measurement and screening, etc.), for example, establishing the influence of the scattering matrix S of the matching network under different impedance control code words on the system transmission gain and so on, so as to obtain the multiple groups of data pairs (T Ant, (C1, C2)) shown in FIG. 6, then performing fitting through the function model to establish the second parameter model shown…”
9 “…The impedance tuning circuit 31 has a reference state, which is a preset state of the plurality of impedance tuning circuit 31 states, and the reference state is used for the measurement of the state parameter of the antenna. The impedance tuning circuit 31 may include: One or more tunable devices (e.g., tunable capacitors, tunable inductors or switches, etc.), and/or one or more non-tunable devices (e.g., fixed capacitors or inductors, etc.). The state of the plurality of impedance tuning circuits 31 may consist of a combination of the state of the one or more tuneable devices and the state of the one or more non-tuneable devices. For example, the impedance tuning circuit comprises adjustable capacitors C1 and C2, assuming that the adjustable capacitors C1 and C2 both comprise three adjustments of different capacitance values, the state of the adjustable capacitor C1 and the state of the adjustable capacitor C2 can be combined to obtain 9 combined states, If the equivalent capacitances in the nine combined states are not equal, the states of the plurality of impedance tuning circuits 31 can be the nine combined states, and the reference state can be preset as a certain state of the nine combined states…”