DETAILED ACTION
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: The terminology throughout the claim is inconsistent between some of the elements of the claim. Specifically on line 3 the language “first and second folding portions” can suggest a single or multiple first folding portions and single or multiple second folding portions, wherein it is later referred to in lines 5, 6, and 11 as a first folding portion and a second folding portion. Also the applicant uses similar terminology with the elements on lines 5-6 stating “a first antenna” and “a second antenna” then on lines 6, 7, and 9 of the claim uses the phrase “the first and second antennas”. It is suggested by the examiner to stay consistent throughout all of the claims with terminology. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: For the inconsistent use of the phrase “the first and second antennas”. It is suggested to stay consistent with the terminology by using the phrase -- the first antenna and the second antenna --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 5 is objected to because of the following informalities: For the inconsistent use of the phrase “the first and second antennas”. It is suggested to stay consistent with the terminology by using the phrase -- the first antenna and the second antenna --. Claim 5 also uses the phrase “first and second circuit boards” which can suggest a single or multiple first circuit boards and single or multiple second circuit boards. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: For the inconsistent use of the phrase “the first and second antennas”. It is suggested to stay consistent with the terminology by using the phrase -- the first antenna and the second antenna --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: For the inconsistent use of the phrase “the first and second antennas”. It is suggested to stay consistent with the terminology by using the phrase -- the first antenna and the second antenna --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: For the inconsistent use of the phrase “the first and second antennas”. It is suggested to stay consistent with the terminology by using the phrase -- the first antenna and the second antenna --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: For the inconsistent use of the phrase “the first and second antennas”. It is suggested to stay consistent with the terminology by using the phrase -- the first antenna and the second antenna --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 13 is objected to because of the following informalities: For the inconsistent use of the phrase “the first and second antennas”. It is suggested to stay consistent with the terminology by using the phrase -- the first antenna and the second antenna --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 14 is objected to because of the following informalities: For the inconsistent use of the phrase “the first and second antennas”. It is suggested to stay consistent with the terminology by using the phrase -- the first antenna and the second antenna --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: For the inconsistent use of the phrase “the first and second antennas”. It is suggested to stay consistent with the terminology by using the phrase -- the first antenna and the second antenna --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 20 is objected to because of the following informalities: For the inconsistent use of the phrase “the first and second antennas”. It is suggested to stay consistent with the terminology by using the phrase -- the first antenna and the second antenna --. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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.
Claim(s) 1-13, 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCormack (2017/0300279).
Regarding Claim 1: McCormack teaches an apparatus for use with a foldable computing device, the apparatus comprising: a hinge (130) by which first (110) and second (120) folding portions of the computing device are rotatably coupled (figs. 1a-2c and 11); a first antenna (121a) of the first folding portion (fig. 1a); a second antenna (111a) of the second folding portion, (fig. 1a) the first and second antennas to be wirelessly communicatively coupled to one another (fig. 11), the first and second antennas separate from the hinge (figs. 1a-2c and 11); and equalizer circuitry (112, 122) to enable equalization between the first and second antennas to maintain signals therebetween to meet a bit error rate (BER) threshold over a range of motion of the first folding portion relative to the second folding portion (processor circuitry 112, 122 contains equalizer circuitry as required for the transceivers/antennas to properly maintain signal integrity).
Regarding Claim 2: McCormack teaches the first and second antennas are wirelessly communicatively coupled via a millimeter wave signal or a sub-terahertz frequency signal (paragraph [0056]).
Regarding Claim 3: McCormack teaches a third antenna (figs. 1a-2c) of the first folding portion (figs. 1a-2c), the third antenna being a broadside antenna (figs. 3b-3d), the first antenna being an end-firing antenna (figs. 3b-3d).
Regarding Claim 4: McCormack teaches further including a fourth antenna (figs. 1a-2c) of the second folding portion (figs. 1a-2c), the fourth antenna being a broadside antenna (figs. 3b-3d), the second antenna being an end-firing antenna (figs. 3b-3d).
Regarding Claim 5: McCormack teaches wherein the first and second antennas are mounted on first and second circuit boards, respectively (paragraph [0063]).
Regarding Claim 6: McCormack teaches wherein no signal cables extend across the hinge (fig. 3a).
Regarding Claim 7: McCormack teaches wherein the first and second antennas are to transmit and receive video signals for a display (figs. 1a-3d and 11).
Regarding Claim 8: McCormack teaches wherein at least one of the first or second antennas includes a combination antenna (figs. 1a-3d) having a broadside antenna and an end- firing antenna (figs. 1a-3d).
Regarding Claim 9: McCormack teaches wherein the equalization circuitry selects the broadside antenna (fig. 3d) or the end-firing antenna (fig. 3b) based on an angle between the first folding portion and the second folding portion (figs. 3b-3d show the device with the antennas as different angles of rotation of the first and second components while having the antennas switch between broadside and end-firing antenna depending on the angle).
Regarding Claim 10: McCormack teaches wherein the equalization circuitry selects a first strength of the broadside antenna and a second strength of the end-firing antenna based on an angle between the first folding portion and the second folding portion (paragraph [0064] showing the threshold can be changed depending on the distance and angle of the antennas).
Regarding Claim 11: McCormack ‘279 teaches the equalization circuitry adjusts equalization between the first and second antennas based on an angle between the first folding portion and the second folding portion (shown from the curvature angles in figs. 11 and 14a-14b).
Regarding Claim 12: McCormack teaches a foldable computing device comprising: a first folding portion (110) to support a display (figs. 1a-3d and 11), the first folding portion including a first antenna (121a); a second folding portion (120) to support at least one of an input device or another display (figs. 1a-3d and 11), the second folding portion rotatably coupled to the first folding portion (figs. 1a-3d and 11) at a hinge (130), the second folding portion including a second antenna (111a), the first and second antennas to be communicatively coupled to one another to enable intra-device signals to be transmitted therebetween (paragraph [0042]), the first antenna and the second antenna separate from the hinge (figs. 1a-3d and 11); and equalizer circuitry (included in 112 and 122) to perform equalization between the first and second antennas to maintain signals therebetween to meet a bit error rate (BER) threshold over a range of motion of the first folding portion relative to the second folding portion (processor circuitry 112, 122 contains equalizer circuitry as required for the transceivers/antennas to properly maintain signal integrity).
Regarding Claim 13: McCormack teaches wherein the first and second antennas are wirelessly communicatively coupled via a millimeter wave signal or a sub- terahertz frequency signal (paragraph [0037]).
Regarding Claim 15: McCormack teaches wherein the hinge includes a barrel (figs. 1a-3d), the first and second antennas external to an outer surface of the barrel.
Regarding Claim 16: McCormack teaches wherein no signal cables extend into an inner portion of the barrel (figs. 1a-3d).
Regarding Claim 17: McCormack teaches wherein the second antenna is to transmit video signals for a display to the first antenna (figs. 1a-3d).
Regarding Claim 18: McCormack teaches wherein at least one of the first antenna or the second antenna is aimed in a direction generally toward the hinge (figs. 1a-3d and 11) over an angular range of motion between the first folding portion and the second folding portion (figs. 1a-3d and 11).
Regarding Claim 19: McCormack teaches wherein: the first antenna and the display are powered by a first power source (figs. 1a-3d), and the second antenna and the at least one of the input device or the another display are powered by a second power source different from the first power source (figs. 1a-3d).
Regarding Claim 20: McCormack teaches a method comprising: rotatably coupling a first folding portion (110) to a second folding portion (120) via a hinge (130); placing a first antenna (121a) on the first folding portion (figs. 1a-3d and 11); placing a second antenna (111a) on the second folding portion (figs. 1a-3d and 11), the first and second antennas to be wirelessly communicatively coupled to one another (paragraph [0042]), the first and second antennas placed away from the hinge (figs. 1a-3d and 11); and electrically coupling equalizer circuitry (included in 112 and 122) to at least one of the first antenna or the second antenna, the equalizer circuitry to enable equalization between the first and second antennas so that the first and second antennas can wirelessly communicate over a range of motion of the first folding portion relative to the second folding portion (processor circuitry 112, 122 contains equalizer circuitry as required for the transceivers/antennas to properly maintain signal integrity).
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.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McCormack (2017/0300279) as applied to the claims above, and further in view of Besel (2019/0089037).
Regarding Claim 14: McCormack lacks a specific teaching of the first and second antennas are printed antennas associated with respective radio-frequency integrated circuits (RFICs).
Besel teaches the first and second antennas (702 and 710) are printed antennas associated with respective radio-frequency integrated circuits (RFICs) (fig. 7 and paragraphs [0037]-[0038]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the apparatus of McCormack by having the first and second antennas are printed antennas associated with respective radio-frequency integrated circuits (RFICs) as disclosed by Besel in order to allow for a strong signal communication between antenna devices but also while saving space and consolidating between components with the apparatus as a whole leading to a more versatile overall apparatus.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The additional references cited on the PTO-892 disclose/teach similar electronic devices including two housings connected together by a hinge while including multiple antenna devices communicating with each other to send electronic data between the two housings.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANTHONY MICHAEL HAUGHTON whose telephone number is (571)272-9087. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9a-5p.
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, Imani Hayman can be reached at 571-270-5528. 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.
/ANTHONY M HAUGHTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2841