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 § 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 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo (2023/0170604).
Regarding claim 1, Jo discloses an electronic device comprising: a housing wall; one or more antennas {AR} having a transmit port and a receive port; and a waveguide {TA} between the housing wall and the one or more antennas (See figs. 5, 6A, 7), the transmit port and the receive port being configured to convey, through the waveguide and the housing wall, first and second streams of wireless data (i.e. transmit and received signals) (See par [0105]). However, Jo does not explicitly mention that the transmit port and the receive port being configured to concurrently convey the first and second streams of wireless data under an in-band full duplex scheme. Since Jo does disclose that electronic device is capable of operating in various wireless protocols such as 2G, 3G, 4G, or 5G LTE (See fig. 1 and par [ 0061]) and in-band full duplex (IBFD) is commonly known in the art as a wireless protocol that allows a wireless node to transmit and receive data simultaneously on the same frequency band; therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the electronic device, disclosed by Jo, with IBFD capability, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the device to various wireless communication protocols.
Regarding claim 14, Jo discloses an electronic device (See fig. 6A) comprising: an antenna {AR}; a housing having a wall; and a waveguide {TA} extending from a first surface facing the antenna to an opposing second surface facing the wall (See figs. 5, 6A, 7), wherein the first surface has a first width, the second surface has a second width greater than the first width (See figs. 13A, 14A, 15A), and the antenna is configured to transmit and receive RF signals through the waveguide and the wall (See par [0105]). However, Jo does not explicitly mention that the antenna is configured to concurrently transmit and receive RF signals at a frequency. Since Jo does disclose that electronic device is capable of operating in various wireless protocols such as 2G, 3G, 4G, or 5G LTE (See fig. 1 and par [ 0061]), and in-band full duplex (IBFD) is commonly known in the art as a wireless protocol that allows a wireless node to transmit and receive data simultaneously on the same frequency band; therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the electronic device, disclosed by Jo, with IBFD capability, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the device to various wireless communication protocols.
Regarding claims 15-16, Jo discloses as cited in claim 14. Jo further discloses the waveguide comprises: a first portion extending from the first surface and having the first width; and a second portion extending from the first portion to the second surface, the second portion having sidewalls oriented at a non-orthogonal angle with respect to the second end, wherein the first portion extends orthogonal to the first surface (See fig. 15A).
Regarding claims 17-18, Jo discloses as cited in claim 15. Jo further discloses the frequency is between 57 GHz and 64 GHz (i.e. 60GHz) (See Par [0061]), and the electronic device further comprises conductive traces 652 that cover some but not all of the sidewalls of the second portion (See figs. 15B, 15C and par [0159]). However, Jo does not explicitly mention that the first portion extends orthogonal to the first surface, wherein the first surface extends parallel to the second surface, the first surface extends parallel to a plane of the antenna, the second surface extends parallel to the wall (waveguide has different shapes as shown in figures 7-11 of the specification). Since Jo does suggest that the waveguide has different sizes/shapes (See figs. 7, 8A-8G, 13A, 14A, 14B, 15A-15C, 16); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the waveguide, as disclosed by Jo, to have shapes as recited in claims, for the advantage of providing a greater degree of freedom in constructing waveguide in order to accommodate the design intentions.
Claims 2-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jo (2023/0170604) in view of Yamada (2009/0066590).
Regarding claim 2, Jo discloses as cited in claim 1. However, Jo does not explicitly mention that the waveguide has an elongated portion with a first width and a horn that extends, from the elongated portion, to an opposing end having a second width greater than the first width (i.e. horn waveguide). Since Yamada suggests a horn waveguide having an elongated portion with a first width and a horn that extends, from the elongated portion, to an opposing end having a second width greater than the first width (See figs. 2, 6 and par [0036-0037]); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize horn waveguide, as suggested by Yamada, for the device of Jo, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the device to various types of waveguide.
Regarding claim 3, Jo & Yamada disclose as cited in claim 2. Yamada further discloses the elongated portion faces the one or more antennas and the horn faces the housing wall (See figs. 2, 6).
Regarding claims 4-5, Jo & Yamada disclose as cited in claim 2. Yamada further discloses the horn has angled sidewalls (See fig. 2). Since Jo does suggest that the electronic device comprising conductive traces that cover some but not all of the sidewalls of the second portion facing the housing wall (See figs. 15B, 15C and par [0159]); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to have included conductive traces cover some but not all of the angled sidewalls of the horn, for the advantage of adjusting the direction of antenna beam.
Regarding claims 6-7, Jo & Yamada disclose as cited in claim 2. Yamada further discloses the waveguide has a circular cross section, wherein the horn has a conical shape (See fig. 6).
Regarding claims 8-9, Jo & Yamada disclose as cited in claim 2. Yamada further discloses the waveguide has a rectangular cross section, wherein the horn has a pyramidal shape (See fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Jo & Yamada disclose as cited in claim 2. Yamada further discloses the elongated portion extends along a first longitudinal axis and the horn extends along a second longitudinal axis that is non-parallel with respect to the first longitudinal axis (See figs. 2, 6).
Regarding claims 11-12, Jo & Yamada disclose as cited in claim 2. However, they do not mention that the waveguide has an additional horn, the elongated portion being interposed between the horn and the additional horn, wherein the elongated portion extends along a first longitudinal axis, the horn extends along a second longitudinal axis that is non-parallel with respect to the first longitudinal axis, and the additional horn extends along a third longitudinal axis that is parallel to and laterally offset from the second longitudinal axis (waveguide has different shapes as shown in figures 10-11 of the specification). Since Jo does suggest that the waveguide has different sizes/shapes (See figs. 7, 8A-8G, 13A, 14A, 14B, 15A-15C, 16); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the waveguide, as disclosed by Jo & Yamada, to have shapes as recited in claims, for the advantage of providing a greater degree of freedom in constructing waveguide in order to accommodate the design intentions.
Claims 1 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (9,819,400).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Uchida discloses a dock device 50 (See figs. 1, 4 and col. 4 lines 26-28) comprising: a housing wall; one or more antennas having a transmit port and a receive port; and a waveguide {34, 35} between the housing wall and the one or more antennas (See fig. 1), the transmit port and the receive port being configured to convey, through the waveguide and the housing wall, first and second streams of wireless data (See figs. 1, 4 and col. 4 line 32 to col. 5 line 40), wherein the housing wall comprises a receiving surface configured to receive an external device 40 (See fig.4 and col. 4 lines 26-28), the receive port is configured to receive the second stream of wireless data from the external device through the housing wall and the waveguide, and the electronic device is configured to transmit the second stream of wireless data to a monitor (See figs. 1, 4 and col. 10 line 38 to col. 11 line 43). However, Uchida does not explicitly mention that the transmit port and the receive port being configured to concurrently convey, through the waveguide and the housing wall, first and second streams of wireless data under an in-band full duplex scheme. Since in-band full duplex (IBFD) is commonly known in the art as a wireless protocol that allows a wireless node to transmit and receive data simultaneously on the same frequency band; therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the electronic device, disclosed by Uchida, with IBFD capability, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the device to various wireless communication protocols.
Claims 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida (9,819,400) in view of Yamada (2009/0066590).
Regarding claims 19-20, Uchida discloses an electronic device 50 (i.e. a dock device) configured to dock a first device 40 to a second device 60 (See fig. 4), the electronic device comprising: a transmit antenna configured to transmit first RF signals at a frequency; a receive antenna configured to receive second RF signals at a frequency; a housing wall; and a waveguide {34, 35}, the waveguide is configured to convey the first radio-frequency signals from the transmit antenna through the housing wall, and the waveguide is configured to convey the second radio-frequency signals from the housing wall to the receive antenna (See figs. 1, 4 and col. 4 line 32 to col. 5 line 40). However, Uchida does not explicitly mention that the waveguide extending from a first end having a first width to an opposing second end having a second width greater than the first width, wherein the first end faces and overlaps the transmit antenna and the receive antenna, the waveguide has a first portion that extends from the first end, the first portion having the first width, the waveguide has a second portion that extends from the first portion to the second end, the second portion having a width that increases from the first width at the first portion to the second width at the second end, wherein the first portion of the waveguide is linear and the second portion of the waveguide comprises a conical or pyramidal horn (i.e. horn waveguide). Since Yamada suggests a horn waveguide extending from a first end having a first width to an opposing second end having a second width greater than the first width, wherein the first end faces and overlaps the transmit antenna and the receive antenna, the waveguide has a first portion that extends from the first end, the first portion having the first width, the waveguide has a second portion that extends from the first portion to the second end, the second portion having a width that increases from the first width at the first portion to the second width at the second end, wherein the first portion of the waveguide is linear and the second portion of the waveguide comprises a conical or pyramidal horn (See figs. 2, 6 and par [0036-0037]); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize horn waveguide, as suggested by Yamada, for the device of Uchida, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the device to various types of waveguide.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
See PTO-892 for a listing of cited prior arts of record.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TUAN A TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-7858. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri: 7:30 AM - 5:00 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.
/TUAN A TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights