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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I (claims 1-15) is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “the subject matter of Invention I and Invention II is sufficiently related that a thorough search for the subject matter of any one Invention would encompass a search for the subject matter of the remaining Invention. Thus, it is respectfully submitted that the search and examination of the entire application for Invention I and Invention II could be made without serious burden.”
This is not found persuasive because as outlined in the 3/23/26 restriction requirement, the inventions listed are distinct and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required. Specifically, the inventions have a separate status in the art in view of their different classification and the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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 1-15 are 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, reciting “a wireless communication device, comprising: …; and a switching device, configured to electrically connect the conductive metal to the ground plane to change a grounding area and a grounding shape of the main radiation source antenna to accordingly control a radiation pattern of the main radiation source antenna” are indefinite, since it’s unclear how such functionalities are performed absent any feed or processing circuit. In other words, it’s NOT understood how “a wireless communication device” is obtained without any feed/excitation device or processor.
Claims 2-10 depend therefrom.
Claim 11 reciting “an RF SoC” is indefinite, since the acronym “SoC” has not been defined and it is NOT well established in the art.
Claim 11 reciting “a first switching device and a second switching device, configured to electrically conduct the first conductive metal to the ground plane and the second conductive metal to the ground plane, respectively, to change a grounding area and a grounding shape of the main radiation source antenna to accordingly control a radiation pattern of the main radiation source antenna” are indefinite, since it’s unclear how these functionalities occur absent any feed/excitation device or processor.
Claim 11, last clause reciting “wherein the RF SoC is configured to determine conducting states of the first switching device and the second switching device according to signal strengths corresponding to every conducting combination of the first switching device and the second switching device” are indefinite, since (a) it’s unclear how “the RF SoC is configured to determine conductive states” as claimed, and (b) it’s not understood what is meant by “every conducting combination” absent any feed, control lines and/or a processor.
The spec. discloses, e.g., in ¶ 18 and ¶ 23 of the printed publication:
[0018] Please refer to FIG. 1, it is a schematic diagram of a wireless communication device 100 according to one embodiment of the present disclosure. The wireless communication device 100 is an electronic device capable of transmitting and receiving radio frequency signals RF, such as a wireless mouse, a wireless dongle, a wearable device or a portable device. ... The main radiation source antenna 11 is an omnidirectional antenna or a directive antenna without particular limitations. The RF SoC 14 preferably includes a processor 141, e.g., a micro controller unit (MCU) or an application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) to identify a signal strength of the radio frequency signals RF, e.g., identifying the receiving signal strength indicator (RSSI) or signal-to-noise ratio (SNR).
…
[0023] The RF SoC 14 is used to determine the conducting state of the at least one switching device in an operation stage according to signal strengths corresponding to every conducting combination of the at least one switching device, e.g., by sending control signals Sc1 to Sc3 to respectively control the ON/OFF of the first switching device 121, the second switching device 122 and the third switching device 123. For example, when all the switching devices 121 to 123 are not conducted, the RF SoC 14 receives the radio frequency signal RF having a first signal strength from the main radiation source antenna 11. When the RF SoC 14 respectively controls one of the switching devices 121 to 123 to conduct, the RF SoC 14 receives the radio frequency signal RF having a second signal strength (including three strength values corresponding to conducting 121, 122 and 123 respectively) from the main radiation source antenna 11. ... The RF SoC 14 (e.g., the processor 141 thereof) compares all of the obtained signal strengths to determine an optimum strength and the corresponding conducted switching devices so as to control the conducting states of the switching devices 121 to 123. That is, the conducting states are determined according to the first, second, third and fourth signal strengths, which are influenced by a distance from a communication target of the wireless communication device 200, the obstacle(s) therebetween, and environmental noises. By selecting an optimum signal strength and conducting corresponding switching device(s), it is able to reduce the influence from these environmental reasons as much as possible.
As such, it appears that sending control signals using a processor in the RF SoC to respectively control the ON/OFF of the first and second switching devices are essential features of the invention, absent which the “wireless communication device” cannot operate as its intended purpose.
Claims 12-15 depend therefrom.
In view of the aforementioned, scope of claims 1-15 cannot be ascertained.
Nevertheless, there should be a clear recitation of interrelated structure in order to provide a complete and operable wireless communication device.
The following claim, drafted by the examiner and considered to distinguish patentably over the art of record in this application, is presented to applicant for consideration:
(Currently Amended) A wireless communication device, comprising:
[[an]] a radio frequency system-on-chip (RF SoC) including a processor;
a ground plane;
a main radiation source antenna, coupled to the ground plane;
a first conductive metal and a second conductive metal, wherein the first conductive metal, the second conductive metal and the ground plane are physically separated from one another; and
a first switching device and a second switching device, configured to electrically conduct the first conductive metal to the ground plane and the second conductive metal to the ground plane, respectively, to change a grounding area and a grounding shape of the main radiation source antenna to accordingly control a radiation pattern of the main radiation source antenna,
wherein the RF SoC is configured to determine conducting states of the first switching device and the second switching device, by sending control signals to respectively control ON/OFF states of the first switching device and the second switching device, according to signal strengths corresponding to every conducting combination of the first switching device and the second switching device.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over “Mori” (US 20220278700).
Claim 1: As best understood, Mori discloses a wireless communication device, comprising:
a radio frequency system-on-chip (RF SoC) 640 (Fig. 60);
a ground plane 610;
a main radiation source antenna 60, coupled (capacitively, via 602) to the ground plane;
a conductive metal 602, physically separated (using V62) from the ground plane; and
a switching device Sw1, configured to electrically connect the conductive metal to the ground plane to change a grounding area and a grounding shape of the main radiation source antenna to accordingly control a radiation pattern of the main radiation source antenna (this limitation is deemed inherent in view of MPEP 2112.01(I), which states “[w]here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).).
Claim 2: As best understood, Mori teaches the wireless communication device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the RF SoC is configured to
receive a first signal strength from the main radiation source antenna upon the switching device not being conducted,
receive a second signal strength from the main radiation source antenna upon the switching device being conducted, and
compare the first signal strength and the second signal strength to determine whether to continuously conduct the switching device (these limitations are deemed inherent in view of MPEP 2112.01(I), which states “[w]here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).).
Claim 3: Mori teaches the wireless communication device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the wireless communication device is a portable device (¶ 194: “antenna module”).
Claims 4-7: Mori teaches the wireless communication device as claimed in claim 1, further comprising a substrate 630 (Fig. 61), wherein the RF SoC, the ground plane, the main radiation source antenna, the conductive metal and the switching device are arranged on the substrate (see Fig. 61);
wherein the main radiation source antenna and the conductive metal are arranged on different surfaces of the substrate (see Fig. 61);
wherein the substrate is a multi-layer substrate, and the main radiation source antenna and the conductive metal are arranged in different layers of the substrate (see Fig. 61);
further comprising another conductive metal 101 (Fig. 11) arranged on the substrate and physically separated from the ground plane and the conductive metal, wherein the switching device is configured to electrically connect the conductive metal to the ground plane or electrically connect the another conductive metal to the ground plane to change the grounding area and the grounding shape of the main radiation source antenna (this limitation is deemed inherent in view of MPEP 2112.01(I), which states “[w]here the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established.” In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977).).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bit-Babik (US 7477201)
Son (US 11757179)
Singh (US 11245206)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HASAN ISLAM whose telephone number is (571)270-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thu 9AM-7PM EST.
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, DAMEON LEVI can be reached at (571)272-2105. 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.
/HASAN ISLAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights