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 § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-12, 14-18, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Pefkianakis et al (US 2022/0225118 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 14, Pefkianakis discloses a wireless communication device (Fig. 2), the device comprising:
a wireless communication system (Fig. 2, coverage map 308) having a plurality of communication configurations (79th paragraph, the coverage map data includes a highest gain antenna panel and beam identities for each available device orientation and position);
a navigation system (Fig. 2, motion detection 306) operable to generate navigation information comprising at least one of orientation information indicative of an orientation and position information indicative of a position (73rd paragraph, the motion detection module 306 can determine a new position and orientation of the device); and
a processor (Fig. 2, data processing device 302) operable to receive the navigation information and cause the wireless communication system to take a communication configuration previously determined for at least one of the orientation and the position (Fig. 8, blocks 808 and 810, accessing a coverage map that associates, for each pose of a plurality of poses, selecting an antenna and beam for communication. Herein, a pose is structured by position and orientation and the coverage map includes selected antenna and beam for each pose, 73rd paragraph);
wherein taking the communication configuration comprises at least one of:
switching a frequency filter configured to filter out a frequency;
switching an amplifier;
switching a multiplexer;
electronically modifying an electrical circuit to improve a signal received by a plurality of transceivers from at least one antenna element;
switching a plurality of antennas between a plurality of transceivers (Fig. 7, block 810, a new antenna and beam selected for a particular pose).
Regarding claims 2 and 15, Pefkianakis discloses that wherein the wireless communication system can selectively connect to any of a plurality of services and the processor is operable to cause the wireless communication system to be in communication with a service of the plurality of services previously determined for at least one of the orientation and the position (52nd paragraph, UE may be provided with IoT applications, different technologies, etc…).
Regarding claims 3 and 16, Pefkianakis discloses that wherein the communication system comprises a plurality of dissimilarly orientated directional antennas, and the processor is operable to activate at least one directional antenna of the plurality of dissimilarly orientated directional antennas previously determined for at least one of the orientation and the position (74th paragraph, the selection of beam and antenna includes a configuration of a selected phased antenna array to generate a directional beam from that array panel).
Regarding claim 4, Pefkianakis discloses a switch operationally coupled to the plurality of dissimilarly orientated directional antennas and operable to activate at least one of the plurality of dissimilarly orientated directional antennas (74th and 75th paragraphs, the selection of beam and antenna includes a configuration of a selected phased antenna array to generate a directional beam from that array panel and the data processing device is configured to switch to an antenna, beam, or both).
Regarding claim 5, Pefkianakis discloses a controller operationally coupled to the switch and the controller for operating the switch in accordance with switching instructions received from the processor (78th paragraph, the coverage map module determines a change in pose is significant enough for beam or antenna panel switching to occur. Herein, the panel must include a controller for switching the beam or antenna as instructed by the data processing device 302).
Regarding claims 6 and 17, Pefkianakis discloses a beam-steering antenna, and the processor is operable to point the beam-steering antenna as previously determined for at least one of the orientation and the position (46th paragraph, beamforming enables a device to steer the RF energy in a particular direction by varying amplitude and phase of one or more elements of a phased array antenna).
Regarding claim 7, Pefkianakis discloses that wherein the processor is operable to cause the wireless communication system to apply a quality of service policy previously determined for at least one of the orientation and the position (9th paragraph, determining an optimal beam and antenna selection for improved performance on the communication link. Herein, performance improvement is an improvement of quality of service)
Regarding claims 8 and 18, Pefkianakis discloses that wherein the processor comprises memory comprising information indicative of which of the plurality of communication configurations to use at each of a plurality of locations (Fig. 2, memory storing coverage map).
Regarding claim 9, Pefkianakis discloses a router (Fig. 2) comprising the processor (Fig. 2, data processing device 302) and at least one wireless modem in information communication with the router (Fig. 1, UE must include transceiver).
Regarding claim 10, Pefkianakis discloses that wherein the wireless communication system is for wireless communication at a carrier frequency in the range of 27 MHz to 60 GHz (5th paragraph, FR transmissions are between 24.25GHz to 52.6GHz).
Regarding claim 11, Pefkianakis discloses that wherein the wireless communication system is for wireless communication at a carrier frequency in the range of 700 MHz to 3.5 GHz (62nd paragraph, licensed spectrum may include channels that operate in frequency range of 400MHz to 3.8 GHz).
Regarding claim 12, Pefkianakis discloses that wherein the wireless communication system is for wireless communication in at least one of a 3G frequency band, a 4G frequency band and a 5G frequency band 62nd paragraph, licensed spectrum may include channels that operate in frequency range of 400MHz to 3.8 GHz).
Regarding claim 21, Pefkianakis discloses a non-transitory computer readable media stored thereon computer program instructions (64th paragraph, memory storing instructions) which executed by a processor (Fig. 2, data processing device 302) causes the processor to perform the method defined in claim 14 (see claim 14 rejection).
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.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pefkianakis in view of Rondinone et al (US 2023/0027283 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Pefkianakis discloses generating a directional beam from array panel (74th paragraph). Pefkianakis does not disclose that wherein the wireless communication system comprises at least one omnidirectional antenna. Rondinone discloses vehicles using omnidirectional antenna configurations (Fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include omnidirectional antenna in Pefkianakis’s system, as suggested by Rondinone, to detect and cover a broad communication range.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed August 11, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in page 8 that Pefkianakis is missing the recited front end reconfiguration elements. The communication configuration comprises at least one of: switching a frequency filter, switching an amplifier, switching a multiplexer, electronically modifying a circuit to improve received signal from an antenna element, or switching antennas between a plurality of transceivers. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Claim 1 recites “at least one of” therefore, not all limitations following “at least one of” are considered by Examiner. Others, not selected for examination, are alternative.
Applicant argues in page 9 that the present invention, as described in the specification, embodiments may utilize navigation information from a navigation system to retrieve a location keyed communication configuration. Examiner respectfully disagrees. This is not part of the claimed invention.
Applicant argues in page 9 that Pefkianakis switches antennas on a single baseband chain/transceiver, rather than switching antennas across a plurality of transceivers. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Pefkianakis discloses that RFICs may include connections to one or more antennas. Both mmWave and sub-mmWave radio functions may be implemented in the same physical antenna beam panel 312 which incorporates both mmWave antennas and sub-mmWave (69th paragraph and Fig. 2). Herein, antenna beam panel 312 must include different transceivers for handling mmWave and sub-mmWave antennas.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 ANH VU H LY whose telephone number is (571)272-3175. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm.
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, Nick Jensen can be reached at 571-270-5443. 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.
ANH VU H. LY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2472
/ANH VU H LY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights