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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because, for better understanding of the claimed invention, FIGURES 1, 3-5 should be labeled descriptively. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because implied language. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 9, 12, 14, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0192845 (Szini, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0208451 (Mohammadian).
Szini, et al disclose a wireless communication module (figures 3-5, #104), comprising a signal processing device (#234). A 1-1st antenna (#202) connected to the signal processing device (#234) to transmit and receive a 1-1st signal. A 1-2nd antenna (#204) connected to the signal processing device (#234) to transmit and receive a 1-2ndsignal. A second antenna (#208, 206) connected to the signal processing device (#234) to transmit and receive a second signal. A first1-1stphase control element (#210) disposed between the 1-1st antenna (#202) and the signal processing device (#234). A 1-2nd phase control element (#234, 212) disposed between the 1-2nd antenna (#204) and the signal processing device (#234) and a second phase control element (#214, 216) disposed between the second antenna (#206, 208) and the signal processing device (#234, Abstract, ¶15-17, 24).
PNG
media_image1.png
566
911
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Szini, et al does not disclose the 1-1st signal output from the 1-1st phase control element and the 1-2nd signal output from the 1-2nd phase control element have a phase difference of 180 degrees, and wherein the second signal output from the second phase control element has a phase difference of 90 degrees from each of the 1-1st signal and the 1-2nd signal. Mohammadian teaches the first signal output from the first phase control element and the second signal output from the second phase control element have a phase difference of 180 degrees, and wherein the second signal output from the second phase control element has a phase difference of 90 degrees from each of the second signal and the second signal for the purpose of increasing isolation between the donor antenna signal and the coverage antenna signal typically results in less signal interference between the two antennas, higher signal integrity, and improved signal strength, note ¶5, 13, 14, 22, 23, etc., claims 1. 3. 18, 20, figure 3. Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of first signal output from the first phase control element and the second signal output from the second phase control element have a phase difference of 180 degrees, and wherein the second signal output from the second phase control element has a phase difference of 90 degrees from each of the second signal and the second signal for the purpose of increasing isolation between the donor antenna signal and the coverage antenna signal typically results in less signal interference between the two antennas, higher signal integrity, and improved signal strength, as taught by Mohammadian, in the wireless communication module of Szini, et al in order for an antenna may amplify, reshape, retime, filter, or otherwise enhance the wireless signal before retransmission.
PNG
media_image2.png
607
942
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 5 and 14, Szini, et al disclose a wireless communication module (figures 3-5, #104), comprising a signal processing device (#234). A 1-1st antenna (#202) connected to the signal processing device (#234) to transmit and receive a 1-1st signal. A 1-2nd antenna (#204) connected to the signal processing device (#234) to transmit and receive a 1-2ndsignal. A second antenna (#208, 206) connected to the signal processing device (#234) to transmit and receive a second signal. A first1-1stphase control element (#210) disposed between the 1-1st antenna (#202) and the signal processing device (#234). A 1-2nd phase control element (#234, 212) disposed between the 1-2nd antenna (#204) and the signal processing device (#234) and a second phase control element (#214, 216) disposed between the second antenna (#206, 208) and the signal processing device (#234, Abstract, ¶15-17, 24). a third phase control element (#214) disposed between a first ground connected to the 1- 1st antenna (#234, 212) and to the 1-2nd antenna (#204) and a second ground connected to the second antenna (#206, 208). Szini, et al does not disclose the 1-2nd signal output from the 1-2nd antenna have a phase difference of 175 degrees to 185 degrees, and wherein the second signal output from the second antenna has a phase difference of 85 degrees to 95 degrees from each of the 1-1st signal and the 1-2nd signal. In ¶5, 13, 14, 22, 23, etc., claims 1. 3. 18, 20, figure 3, in Mohammadian which teaches the 1-2nd signal output from the 1-2nd antenna have a phase difference of 175 degrees to 185 degrees, and wherein the second signal output from the second antenna has a phase difference of 85 degrees to 95 degrees from each of the 1-1st signal and the 1-2nd signal for the purpose of increasing isolation between the donor antenna signal and the coverage antenna signal typically results in less signal interference between the two antennas, higher signal integrity, and improved signal strength.
PNG
media_image3.png
571
907
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use teaches the 1-2nd signal output from the 1-2nd antenna have a phase difference of 175 degrees to 185 degrees, and wherein the second signal output from the second antenna has a phase difference of 85 degrees to 95 degrees from each of the 1-1st signal and the 1-2nd signal for the purpose of increasing isolation between the donor antenna signal and the coverage antenna signal typically results in less signal interference between the two antennas, higher signal integrity, and improved signal strength, as taught by Mohammadian, in the wireless communication module of Szini, et al in order for an antenna may amplify, reshape, retime, filter, or otherwise enhance the wireless signal before retransmission.
PNG
media_image4.png
626
912
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claims 9 and 18, note ¶5, 13, 14, 22, 23, etc., claims 1. 3. 18, 20, figure 3, in Mohammadian.
PNG
media_image5.png
530
903
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12 and 20, note #204, 234 in Szini, et al.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claim(s) 2-4, 6-8, 15-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0192845 (Szini, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0208451 (Mohammadian) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2002/0136184 (Liang, et al).
Szini, et al in view of Mohammadian discloses all subject matter except for the 1-1st signal and the 1-2nd signal are signals according to a first protocol (claims 2, 6, 15), and the second signal is a signal according to a second protocol different from the first protocol and the first protocol and the second protocol have operating frequencies at least partially overlapping each other, and the phase difference of 180 degrees and the phase difference of 90 degrees are phase differences at the operating frequencies overlapping each other (claims 3, 7, 16) and the second protocol is BLUETOOTH (claims 4, 8, 17). The Examiner takes Official Notice that the 1st signal and/or the 2nd signal are signals according to a first protocol, and the second or third signal is a signal according to a second protocol different from the first protocol and the first protocol and the second protocol have operating frequencies at least partially overlapping each other, and the phase difference of 180 degrees and the phase difference of 90 degrees are phase differences at the operating frequencies overlapping each other and the second protocol is BLUETOOTH is well known and some two decades old in the art. The Examiner cites Liang, et al (¶ 6,11,12,14, etc.) as evidence of such an old and well known technology. Hence, it would have been very 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 to incorporate the use of the two decade old and well known use of 1st signal and/or the 2nd signal are signals according to a first protocol, and the second or third signal is a signal according to a second protocol different from the first protocol and the first protocol and the second protocol have operating frequencies at least partially overlapping each other, and the phase difference of 180 degrees and the phase difference of 90 degrees are phase differences at the operating frequencies overlapping each other and the second protocol is BLUETOOTH, in the wireless communication module of Szini, et al in view of Mohammadian in order to utilize various communication protocols to exchange data between wireless network devices.
PNG
media_image6.png
366
451
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
PNG
media_image7.png
357
456
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0192845 (Szini, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0208451 (Mohammadian) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2002/0136184 (Liang, et al) as applied to claims above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2006/0292996 (Malasani, et al).
PNG
media_image8.png
475
474
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Szini, et al in view of Mohammadian and further in view of Lian, et al discloses all claimed subject matter except for the 1-1st antenna and the 1-2nd antenna constitute a multi-input multi-output (MIMO) antenna according to the first protocol. The Examiner takes Official Notice that antennas being a multi-input multi-output (MIMO) antenna is well known, decades old and commercially available. The Examiner provides Malasani, et al as evidence as such. Hence, it would have been very 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 to incorporate the use of the decade olds, well known, and commercially available use of antennas being a multi-input multi-output (MIMO) antenna in the wireless communication module in order to multiply the capacity of a radio link using multiple transmit and receive antennas and MIMO has become a core technology for broadband wireless communications, including mobile standards—4G WiMAX (802.16 e, m), and 3GPP 4G LTE and 5G NR, as well as Wi-Fi standards, IEEE 802.11n, ac, and ax.
PNG
media_image9.png
514
515
media_image9.png
Greyscale
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
PNG
media_image10.png
426
463
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2014/0192845 (Szini, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2012/0208451 (Mohammadian) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2002/0136184 (Liang, et al) as applied to claims above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2011/0159810 (Kenington, et al).
PNG
media_image11.png
539
804
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Szini, et al in view of Mohammadian and further in view of Lian, et al discloses all claimed subject matter except for the 1-1st signal and the 1-2nd signal operate in a dipole antenna structure. The Examiner takes Official Notice that antennas being dipole antenna structure is well known, decades old and commercially available. The Examiner provides Kenington, et al as evidence as such. Hence, it would have been very 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 to incorporate the use of the decade olds, well known, and commercially available use of antennas being a dipole antenna in the wireless communication module in order to produce a radiation pattern approximating that of an elementary electric dipole with a radiating structure supporting a line current so energized that the current has only one node at each far end.
PNG
media_image12.png
494
796
media_image12.png
Greyscale
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
PNG
media_image13.png
477
812
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 5 be found allowable, claim 14 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 11 is 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art of record does not disclose or make obvious the claimed the 1-1st signal and the 1-2nd signal have the same phase, wherein a phase difference of 90 degrees occurs compared to when the 1-1st signal is output from the signal processing device via the 1-1st phase control element, and wherein a phase difference of -90 degrees or 270 degrees occurs compared to when the 1-2nd signal is output from the signal processing device via the 1-2nd phase control element. In combination with in aa wireless communication module, comprising a signal processing device. A 1-1st antenna connected to the signal processing device to transmit and receive a 1-1st signal. A 1-2nd antenna connected to the signal processing device to transmit and receive a 1-2ndsignal. A second antenna connected to the signal processing device to transmit and receive a second signal. A first1-1st phase control element disposed between the 1-1st antenna and the signal processing device. A 1-2nd phase control element disposed between the 1-2nd antenna and the signal processing device and a second phase control element disposed between the second antenna and the signal processing device. The 1-1st signal output from the 1-1st phase control element and the 1-2nd signal output from the 1-2nd phase control element have a phase difference of 180 degrees, and the second signal output from the second phase control element has a phase difference of 90 degrees from each of the 1-1st signal and the 1-2nd signal.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Conclusion
If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
WILLIAM D. CUMMING
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2645
/WILLIAM D CUMMING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645