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 Arguments
Regarding Applicant's argument concerning the cross-port tuning configuration of claims 1 and 12, Applicant contends that Xu does not teach the claimed cross-port tuning because Xu's tuner associated with a first antenna is primarily used for impedance matching that antenna, and any tuning effect on an adjacent antenna is merely an indirect or parasitic consequence of near-field coupling. Applicant further contends that Li does not remedy this deficiency because Li's filter circuitry associated with a respective feeding point is configured to reject signals in the opposite frequency band rather than facilitate tuning of that frequency band.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Xu expressly teaches that a tuner associated with one antenna feed may facilitate tuning of the frequency band associated with the other antenna. In particular, Xu teaches that tuner 80-1 is disposed on transmission line path 42-1 associated with antenna feed 50-1 and may perform impedance matching for antenna 40-1 while, at the same time, forming an aperture tuner that tunes the frequency response of antenna 40-2 in the second set of frequency bands. Xu similarly teaches that tuner 80-2 is associated with antenna feed 50-2 and may perform impedance matching for antenna 40-2 while concurrently adjusting the impedance in the first set of frequency bands for tuning antenna 40-1. Thus, the tuning of the opposite antenna/frequency band is expressly taught by Xu and is not merely an unintended or incidental result of near-field coupling.
Moreover, the claims do not require that tuning of the opposite frequency band be the sole or primary purpose of the aperture tuning component. The claims require only that the first aperture tuning component be associated with the first port and facilitate tuning of the second frequency band, and that the second aperture tuning component be associated with the second port and facilitate tuning of the first frequency band. Xu expressly teaches this functionality. Xu further explains that shared conductive structures and near-field coupling permit a tuner associated with one antenna to concurrently tune the frequency response of an adjacent antenna in another frequency band.
Applicant's argument regarding Li's filter networks is also unpersuasive because Li is not relied upon for teaching the claimed cross-port tuning functionality. Rather, Li is relied upon for teaching a shared antenna structure having multiple feeding points associated with different frequency bands. Li teaches a first feeding point 104 and a second feeding point 105 that are spaced apart and associated with respective first and second frequency bands, while sharing the same first radiator 101a and conductive sheet 102. Accordingly, Xu supplies the claimed cross-port tuning functionality, while Li supplies the shared antenna structure having multiple feed points. Further, the filter networks identified by Applicant are disclosed by Li only in certain embodiments and do not negate Li's broader teaching of a common radiating structure shared by different frequency-band signal paths.
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments do not overcome the rejection because the combination of Xu and Li teaches or suggests the claimed antenna arrangement in which tuning components associated with respective ports facilitate tuning of the opposite frequency bands.
Regarding Applicant's argument concerning the neutralizing bridge of claims 8 and 19, Applicant contends that Di does not teach the claimed neutralizing bridge because Di's annular neutralizing line is a conductive trace printed on an antenna substrate and is used to counteract coupling currents between adjacent antenna elements of a multi-antenna arrangement. Applicant contrasts this with the claimed neutralizing bridge, which Applicant characterizes as a circuit component located within the diplexer tuning module and configured to prevent cross-talk between signals associated with the first and second ports.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claims do not require that the neutralizing bridge be located within the diplexer tuning module, nor do the claims require any particular circuit topology, physical location, or mechanism by which isolation is achieved. Rather, the claims require a neutralizing bridge “configured to isolate signals associated with the first port from signals associated with the second port.”
Di expressly teaches an annular neutralizing line 13 forming part of a decoupling structure. Di further teaches that current conducted by the annular neutralizing line counteracts coupling current between adjacent antenna elements and thereby improves the isolation degree of the corresponding antenna ports. In the detailed embodiment, Di again explains that the annular neutralizing line counteracts coupling current between adjacent rectangular antenna gaps “so as to improve the port isolation degree” and achieve decoupling within the operating frequency band. Thus, Di teaches a neutralizing conductive structure configured to reduce coupling and improve isolation between antenna ports, which corresponds to the claimed function of isolating signals associated with the first port from signals associated with the second port.
Applicant's reliance on the disclosed embodiment in which its neutralizing bridge is located within a diplexer tuning module does not distinguish the claimed subject matter because that positional relationship is not recited in the claims. Likewise, the fact that Di's neutralizing line operates by counteracting electromagnetic coupling currents does not remove it from the scope of the claimed functional limitation, which does not specify any particular isolation mechanism.
Further, Di is not relied upon for teaching the complete antenna arrangement of the independent claim. Xu in view of Li provides the multi-port antenna arrangement, and Di is relied upon for the additional teaching of a neutralizing decoupling structure used to improve port isolation. Di expressly identifies mutual coupling and electromagnetic interference in compact antenna arrangements as problems addressed by its neutralizing-line decoupling structure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate Di's known neutralizing decoupling structure into the multi-port antenna arrangement of Xu in view of Li in order to reduce coupling between the respective signal paths and improve isolation between the associated ports.
Accordingly, Applicant's arguments concerning the neutralizing bridge are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
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.
Claims 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,9,10,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 12401116, hereinafter Xu) in view of Li (US 11462829) in further view of Di et al. (CN 117374583, hereinafter Di)
Regarding claim 1, Xu discloses a wearable computing device (Col. 2: Lines 31-34; The device can be a wrist-watch device or other wearable or miniature device) comprising:
a housing (Col. 2: Lines 44-46; The device may include a housing);
a display positioned within the housing (Col. 11: Lines 36-46 and Fig. 4; The housing includes a display);
a circuit board positioned within the housing, the circuit board electrically coupled to the display (Col. 5: Lines 33-36; The device includes circuit boards with components mounted on them; Col. 5: Lines 14-16; The display includes circuitry used to operate it; A display requires electronic signals to operate);
a first antenna positioned within the housing (Col. 6: Lines 24-29; Antennas may be positioned within the interior of the device), the antenna including:
a first port configured to facilitate communication of the antenna over a first frequency band (Col. 1: Lines 36-41; The device includes a first antenna feed that carries signals in a first frequency band);
a second antenna positioned within the housing (Col. 6: Lines 24-29; Antennas may be positioned within the interior of the device), the antenna including:
a second port configured to facilitate communication of the antenna over a second frequency band (Col. 1: Lines 36-41; The device includes a second antenna feed that carries signals in a second frequency band);
a diplexer tuning module configured to separate the first frequency band and the second frequency band (Col. 9: Lines 31-44; The system uses a diplexer to separate signals from different frequency bands on the same antenna);
a first aperture tuning component associated with the first port, wherein the first aperture tuning component facilitates tuning of the second frequency band (Col. 1: Lines 52-57; A tuner may be couple to the first antenna feed. The tuner may perform aperture tuning in the second frequency band for the second antenna; Col. 17: Lines 7-18; Tuner 80-1 is disposed on transmission line path 42-1 and associated with antenna feed 50-1. Tuner 80-1 performs impedance matching for antenna 40-1 in the second set of frequency bands while concurrently adjusting the impedance in the first set of frequency bands for tuning antenna 40-2);
a second aperture tuning component associated with the second port, wherein the second aperture tuning component facilitates tuning of the first frequency band (Col. 1: Lines 52-60; Col. 17: Lines 7-18; A tuner may be coupled to the second antenna feed. The tuner may perform aperture tuning in the first frequency band for the first antenna; Col. 17: Lines 7-18; Tuner 80-2 is disposed on transmission line path 42-2 and associated with antenna feed 50-2. Tuner 80-2 performs impedance matching for antenna 40-2 in the second set of frequency bands while concurrently adjusting the impedance in the first set of frequency bands for tuning antenna 40-1).
Xu further explains that the first and second antennas may share conductive antenna structures and that such shared structures and near-field coupling permit a tuner associated with one antenna to tune the frequency response of the other antenna (Col. 15: Lines 32-48). In particular, Xu teaches that a tuner associated with a first antenna may concurrently boost or tune an adjacent antenna in a second frequency band.
Xu therefore teaches the claimed reciprocal or cross-frequency aperture-tuning functionality. However, Xu describes the first and second feeds as feeds of respective first and second antennas and does not expressly disclose a single antenna including both the first port and the second port, as claimed.
Li, however, discloses an antenna including a first port configured to facilitate communication over a first frequency band and a second port configured to facilitate communication over a second frequency band (Col. 4: Lines 40-50; The same physical antenna structure is used for multiple frequency bands; Col. 1: Lines 35-49; The antenna has multiple feeding points (port) connected at different locations. Each feeding point is used for a different frequency band. The same antenna structure is used to radiate signals for both frequency bands).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the antenna arrangement of Xu to employ Li's shared antenna structure having first and second feeding points/ports for the respective first and second frequency bands. The motivation would have been to reduce the number of separate radiating structures, conserve space, and improve integration in a compact wearable electronic device, as expressly taught by Li. Such a modification would have predictably retained Xu's expressly taught reciprocal aperture-tuning functionality while providing the respective first and second feeds on a shared antenna structure.
Xu in view of Li does not expressly disclose a neutralizing bridge configured to isolate signals associated with the first port from signals associated with the second port.
Di, however, discloses a neutralizing bridge configured to isolate signals associated with the first port from signals associated with the second port (Page 6: Lines 10-14; The annular neutralizing line 13 counteracts coupling current between adjacent antenna elements to improve isolation between the corresponding antenna ports; therefore, the annular neutralizing line provides a neutralizing conductive structure that reduces coupling between signals associated with the respective antenna ports, thereby isolating signals associated with one port from signals associated with the other port).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the antenna arrangement of Xu in view of Li to include the neutralizing structure taught by Di, in order to reduce mutual coupling between the respective antenna ports and improve port isolation. Such a modification would have applied a known antenna decoupling structure to achieve the predictable result of improved isolation between signals associated with the first and second ports.
Regarding claim 2 as applied to claim 1, Xu discloses wherein the first frequency band falls within a range that includes frequencies less than about 3 Gigahertz, and wherein the second frequency band falls within a range that includes frequencies greater than about 5 Gigahertz (Col. 8: Lines 31-57; Multiple frequency bands ranging from 600 MHz to 2.2GHz are handled by the device’s wireless circuitry and antennas. Communication bands operating above 5GHz are handled by the device’s wireless circuitry and antennas).
Xu discloses multiple frequency bands including frequencies less than about 3 GHz and frequencies greater than about 5 GHz. The recitation of first and second frequency bands does not exclude the presence of additional frequency bands, and Xu’s disclosure of multiple bands includes at least two bands satisfying the claimed ranges.
Regarding claim 3 as applied to claim 1, Xu in view of Di does not disclose wherein the antenna is configured to communicate over the first frequency band and the second frequency band simultaneously.
Li, however, discloses wherein the antenna is configured to communicate over the first frequency band and the second frequency band simultaneously (Col. 4: Lines 55-58; The antenna can transmit and receive signals in different frequency bands simultaneously; Col. 5: Lines 64-66; Multiple feeding points using the same antenna can transmit and receive signals at the same time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to further modify Xu in view of Li in further view of Di to configure the antenna to communicate over the first and second frequency bands simultaneously, as taught by Li, in order to allow concurrent transmission and reception of signals in different frequency bands while maintaining isolation between the bands using filtering circuitry.
Regarding claim 4 as applied to claim 1, Xu discloses wherein the first frequency band and the second frequency band support a plurality of wireless communication standards, wherein the plurality of wireless communication standards include long-term evolution (LTE), Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA), global positioning system (GPS), n255,Wi-Fi 2.4, Wi-Fi 5G, Wi-Fi 6E, Bluetooth, and ultra-wideband (UWB) (Col. 8: Lines 31-67 and Col. 9: Lines 1-15; There are multiple frequency bands corresponding to multiple wireless standards including WiFi, Bluetooth, LTE, GPS, UWB, and 5G).
Xu discloses support for multiple wireless communication standards across a plurality of frequency bands. The recitation of first and second frequency bands does not exclude the presence of additional frequency bands, and Xu’s disclosure of multiple bands includes at least two bands that support a plurality of wireless communication standards as recited.
Regarding claim 5 as applied to claim 4, Xu discloses wherein the first frequency band supports communication via LTE, Wideband Code Division Multiple Access (WCDMA), GPS, Bluetooth, n255, or Wi-Fi 2.4 (Col. 8: Lines 31-67 and Col. 9: Lines 1-15; The device supports multiple wireless communication standards, including LTE, WCDMA, 3G, GPS, Bluetooth, and Wi-Fi).
The frequency bands in Xu are defined by the operation of the antenna and associated transceiver circuitry, which convey radio-frequency signals within those bands. Accordingly, a frequency band “supports” a given wireless communication standard when the antenna and circuitry operate within that band to transmit and receive signals corresponding to that standard. Because Xu discloses that the antennas convey signals for standards such as LTE, WCDMA, GPS, Bluetooth, and Wi-Fi within their respective frequency bands, Xu inherently teaches that the corresponding frequency bands support those wireless communication standards.
Regarding claim 6 as applied to claim 4, Xu wherein the second frequency band supports communication via Wi-Fi 5G, Wi-Fi 6E, or UWB (Col. 8: Lines 31-67 and Col. 9: Lines 1-15; The device supports multiple wireless communication standards including Wi-Fi operating in the 5 GHz and 6E bands, as well as UWB).
The frequency bands in Xu are defined by the operation of the antenna and associated transceiver circuitry, which convey radio-frequency signals within those bands. Accordingly, when the antenna operates in frequency ranges above about 5 GHz to transmit and receive signals corresponding to Wi-Fi (5 GHz and 6E) and UWB, those frequency ranges constitute a frequency band that supports those wireless communication standards. Thus, Xu inherently teaches that the second frequency band supports Wi-Fi 5G, Wi-Fi 6E, or UWB.
Regarding claim 7 as applied to claim 1, Xu discloses separate tuning components associated with respective antenna feeds and corresponding frequency bands (Col. 1: Lines 52-57; A tuner may be couple to the first antenna feed. The tuner may perform impedance matching in the first frequency band for the first antenna; Col. 1: Lines 52-60; A tuner may be coupled to the second antenna feed. The tuner may perform impedance matching in the second frequency band for the second antenna).
Although Xu refers to these components as tuners rather than diplexer tuning sub-modules, the disclosed tuners perform band-specific signal conditioning for signals conveyed through respective antenna feeds. Accordingly, these tuners correspond to sub-modules that operate on respective frequency bands associated with respective ports.
Furthermore, although Xu discloses these tuning components with respect to different antenna feeds, Li teaches a single antenna having multiple ports corresponding to different frequency bands. The combination of Xu and Li therefore results in first and second diplexer tuning sub-modules associated with respective ports and corresponding frequency bands of the single antenna, as recited.
Regarding claim 9 as applied to claim 1, Xu discloses the wearable computing device further comprising a first matching circuit associated with the first port and a second matching circuit associated with the second port (Col. 1: Lines 52-57; A tuner may be couple to the first antenna feed. The tuner may perform aperture tuning in the second frequency band for the second antenna and first frequency band for the second antenna; Col. 1: Lines 52-60; A tuner may be coupled to the second antenna feed. The tuner may perform aperture tuning in the first frequency band for the first antenna and second frequency band for the second antenna).
Although Xu refers to these components as tuners, performing impedance matching is the fundamental function of a matching circuit. Accordingly, the disclosed tuners correspond to matching circuits associated with respective antenna feeds (ports).
Regarding claim 10 as applied to claim 1, Xu discloses wherein the antenna is a slot antenna, a monopole antenna, or a loop antenna (Col. 10: Lines 12-20; Antennas may be implemented using slot, loop, or monopole antenna structures).
Although Xu discloses multiple antennas, each disclosed antenna may be implemented using slot, loop, or monopole structures. Accordingly, the antenna of the claimed device, as modified in view of the combination with Li, may be implemented using any of these antenna types.
Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 1 addresses the limitations presented in claim 12. Therefore, the limitations of claim 12 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 13 as applied to claim 12, the rejection of claim 2 addresses the limitations presented in claim 13. Therefore, the limitations of claim 13 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 14 as applied to claim 12, the rejection of claim 3 addresses the limitations presented in claim 14. Therefore, the limitations of claim 14 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 15 as applied to claim 12, the rejection of claim 4 addresses the limitations presented in claim 15. Therefore, the limitations of claim 15 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 16 as applied to claim 15, the rejection of claim 5 addresses the limitations presented in claim 16. Therefore, the limitations of claim 16 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 17 as applied to claim 15, the rejection of claim 6 addresses the limitations presented in claim 17. Therefore, the limitations of claim 17 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 18 as applied to claim 12, the rejection of claim 7 addresses the limitations presented in claim 18. Therefore, the limitations of claim 18 have been addressed.
Regarding claim 20 as applied to claim 12, the rejection of claim 9 addresses the limitations presented in claim 20. Therefore, the limitations of claim 20 have been addressed.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Xu et al. (US 12401116, hereinafter Xu) in view of Li (US 11462829) in further view of Di et al. (CN 117374583, hereinafter Di) in further view of Pei et al. (US 20240180484, hereinafter Pei)
Regarding claim 11 as applied to claim 1, Xu in view of Li in further view of Di does not disclose wherein the computing device further comprises one or more electrodes for measuring a biometric parameter of a user.
Pei, however, discloses a wearable computing device comprising one or more electrodes for measuring a biometric parameter of a user (Par. 160: Lines 29-35; Wrist worn devices which have electrodes for sensing a ECG (electrocardiogram) signal include the Apple Watch and devices from Fitbit).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the wearable computing device of Xu in view of Li in further view of Di to further include one or more electrodes for measuring a biometric parameter of a user, as taught by Pei, in order to enable the device to monitor physiological signals such as electrocardiogram (ECG) signals. Such a modification merely involves incorporating known electrode-based biometric sensing techniques into a wearable device to provide additional health monitoring functionality, and would have yielded predictable results.
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 FABIAN BOTELLO whose telephone number is (571)272-4439. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/FABIAN BOTELLO/Examiner, Art Unit 2648
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648
