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 Objections
Claims 3 and 6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3, line 3, recites the limitation “transit”. Should the limitation be “transmit”? Clarification/appropriate correction is required.
Claim 6, line 2, recites the limitation “transit”. Should the limitation be “transmit”? Clarification/appropriate correction is required.
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 5 and 6 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 5 recites the limitation "the initiator device" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Clarification/correction required.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the pair of angle-of-arrival antennas" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Neither claims 1 nor 4, in which claim 6 depends upon, recites any pair of angle-of-arrival antennas. Clarification/correction required.
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.
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 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stitt et al (US 2020/0219343 A11), hereinafter Stitt, in view of Zheng et al (US 2021/0098861 A1), hereinafter Zheng. (Applicant’s cited prior art).
Regarding claim 1, Stitt teaches an antenna system comprising:
a plurality of range antennas, wherein a first range antenna of the plurality of range antennas is substantially orthogonal to a second range antenna of the plurality of range antennas such that the first range antenna is approximately ninety degrees out of phase with the second range antenna (para [0361], [0362] and [0513]); and
a plurality of angle-of-arrival antennas (para [0010], [0011], [0332] and [0513]).
Stitt does not explicitly mention that the plurality of range antennas and the plurality of angle-of-arrival antennas connected to a printed circuit board.
Zheng (para [0022] and [0023]) teaches an antenna system comprising antenna connected to a printed circuit board.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the antennas of Stitt to be connected to a circuit board, as taught by Zheng, doing so would offer benefits such as miniaturization, reducing assembly steps, and also allows for optimized signal integrity and performance.
Regarding claim 8, Stitt teaches an electronic device comprising:
a plurality of angle-of-arrival antennas (para [0010], [0011], [0332] and [0513]); and a processing system that is connected to the plurality of angle-of-arrival antennas, wherein the processing system is configured to transmit a first request to a responder device having a plurality of range antennas, wherein a first range antenna of the plurality of range antennas is substantially orthogonal to a second range antenna of the plurality of range antennas such that the first range antenna is approximately ninety degrees out of phase with the second range antenna (para [0361], [0362] and [0513]), and wherein the first request instructs the responder device to transmit a first signal from the first range antenna at a first time and a second signal from the second range antenna at a second time; select a preferred range antenna from the first range antenna and the second range antenna based on a comparison of the first signal and the second signal received by the plurality of angle-of-arrival antennas; and transmit a second request to the responder device that selects the preferred range antenna for transmitting subsequent signals to the plurality of angle-of-arrival antennas (para [0362]).
Stitt does not explicitly mention that the plurality of angle-of-arrival antennas connected to a printed circuit board.
Zheng (para [0022] and [0023]) teaches an antenna system comprising antennas connected to a printed circuit board.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the angle-of arrival antennas of Stitt to be connected to a circuit board, as taught by Zheng, doing so would offer benefits such as miniaturization, reducing assembly steps, and also allows for optimized signal integrity and performance.
Regarding claim 14, Stitt teaches an electronic device comprising:
a plurality of range antennas, wherein a first range antenna of the plurality of range antennas is substantially orthogonal to a second range antenna of the plurality of range antennas such that the first range antenna is approximately ninety degrees out of phase with the second range antenna ((para [0361], [0362] and [0513]), and
a processing system that is connected to the plurality of range antennas, wherein the processing system is configured to receive a first request to transmit a first signal from the first range antenna at a first time and a second signal from the second range antenna at a second time; transmit, at the first time, the first signal from the first range antenna to a plurality of angle-of-arrival antennas on an initiator device (any device can be considered to be an initiator); transmit, at the second time, the second signal from the second range antenna to the plurality of angle-of-arrival antennas on the initiator device; and select a preferred range antenna for transmitting subsequent signals to the plurality of angle-of-arrival antennas on the initiator device (para [0362]).
Stitt does not explicitly teach that the plurality of range antennas are connected to a printed circuit board.
Zheng (para [0022] and [0023]) teaches an antenna system comprising antennas connected to a printed circuit board.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the range antennas of Stitt to be connected to a circuit board, as taught by Zheng, doing so would offer benefits such as miniaturization, reducing assembly steps, and also allows for optimized signal integrity and performance.
Regarding claim 2, as applied to claim 1, Stitt (Figure 35, para [0364] to [0366]) teaches that each of the plurality of range antennas are configured to transmit radio signals to an initiator device having a pair of angle-of-arrival antennas.
Regarding claim 3, as applied to claim 2, Stitt (Figure 35, para [0010], [0011], [0332] and [0364] to [0366]) teaches that the plurality of range antennas include a first range antenna and a second range antenna, wherein the first range antenna is configured to transit a first signal at a first time to the pair of angle-of-arrival antennas, and wherein the second range antenna is configured to transmit a second signal at a second time to the pair of angle-of- arrival antennas.
Regarding claims 4 and 16, as applied to claims 1 and 14, respectively, Stitt (para 0087]) teaches that the plurality of range antennas include a first range antenna and a second range antenna and wherein the antenna system further comprises a switch that is connected to the first range antenna and the second range antenna.
Regarding claim 5, as applied to claim 4, Stitt (para [0370]) teaches that the switch is configured to select one of the first range antenna and the second range antenna for transmitting subsequent signals to an initiator device based on a selection from the initiator device.
Regarding claim 6, as applied to claim 4, Stitt (para [0362], [0365], [0356] and [0370]) teaches that the first range antenna is configured to transit a first signal at a first time to the pair of angle-of-arrival antennas, wherein the second range antenna is configured to transmit a second signal at a second time to the pair of angle-of- arrival antennas, and wherein the switch is configured to select one of the first range antenna and the second range antenna for transmitting subsequent signals to an initiator device based on signal strength of the first signal received by the pair of angle-of-arrival antennas in comparison with the signal strength of the second signal received by the pair of angle-of-arrival antennas.
Regarding claim 7, as applied to claim 1, Stitt (Figure 35, para [0362]) teaches that each of the plurality of angle-of-arrival antennas are configured to receive radio signals from a responder device having range antennas.
Regarding claim 9, as applied to claim 8, Stitt (para [0362]) teaches that the processing system is further configured to select a first angle-of-arrival channel that is associated with a first angle-of-arrival antenna of the plurality of angle-of-arrival antennas.
Regarding claim 10, as applied to claim 9, Stitt (para [0362]) teaches that the processing system is further configured to determine which of the first range antenna or the second range antenna based on signal strength with the first angle-of-arrival antenna corresponding to the first angle-of-arrival channel.
Regarding claim 11, as applied to claim 8, Stitt (para [0362], [0365], [0366] and [0370]) teaches that the comparison of the first signal and the second signal received by the plurality of angle-of-arrival antennas further comprises determining a first signal strength of the first signal received by the plurality of angle-of-arrival antennas and a second signal strength of the second signal received by the plurality of angle-of- arrival antennas and comparing the first signal strength and the second signal strength to select the preferred range antenna.
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 8, Stitt (para [0364] and [0368]) teaches that the processing system is further configured to receive antenna information associated with the responder device and, based on the antenna information, transmit a third request that the responder device reconfigure an alternate antenna to transmit a third signal from the alternate antenna to the plurality of angle-of-arrival antennas, wherein the alternate antenna is different from the plurality of range antennas on the responder device.
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 12, Stitt (para [0364] and [0368]) teaches that the processing system is further configured to identify the alternate antenna for transmitting the third signal based on antenna capability information in the antenna information.
Regarding claim 15, as applied to claim 14, Stitt (para [0362], [0365], [0366] and [0370]) teaches that the preferred range antenna is selected in response to receiving a second request from the initiator device that indicates the preferred range antenna between at least the first range antenna and the second range antenna.
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 16, Stitt (para [0370]) teaches that the preferred range antenna is selected by changing a state of the switch from a currently selected range antenna to the preferred range antenna for transmitting subsequent signals to the initiator device.
Regarding claim 18, as applied to claim 16, Stitt (para [0362], [0365], [0366] and [0370]) teaches that the switch is configured to select one of the first range antenna and the second range antenna for transmitting subsequent signals to the initiator device based on signal strength of the first signal received by the plurality of angle-of- arrival antennas in comparison with the signal strength of the second signal received by the plurality of angle-of-arrival antennas.
Regarding claim 19, as applied to claim 14, Stitt (para [0348] and [0364]) teaches that the processing system is further configured to determine whether an alternate antenna on the responder device is capable of being reconfigured to transmit signals as a range antenna to the plurality of angle-of-arrival antennas on the initiator device.
Regarding claim 20, as applied to claim 19, Stitt (para [0348] and [0364]) teaches that the processing system is further configured to reconfigure the alternate antenna to transmit a third signal to the plurality of angle- of-arrival antennas on the initiator device based on the determination.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Cooper et al (KR 2021/0001976 A) discloses a range antenna and angle-of-arrival antenna connected to a printed circuit board.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HOANG V NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-1825. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7983. 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.
/HOANG V NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2845