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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendments filed on 12/11/2024 have been fully considered and are made of record.
Claims 3-9 have been amended.
Claim 10 has been cancelled.
Claims 11-21 have been newly added.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
3. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
4. Claims 1-9 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention s directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s):
As to claim 1,
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because:
STEP 1: claim 1 is directed to method which is an apparatus and one of the 4 statutory categories.
STEP 2A: claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea and/or mental steps as follows:
First Prong:
obtaining an impedance point position in response to the state of the sensor satisfying a preset condition; and using the impedance point position o as a position of reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point position is in preset free space to calibrate impedance (hereinafter mentioned as “Data gathering/Pre-Solution Activity”).
(These limitations can be performed by mental steps using mathematical formulas that can also be performed using a general processor)
Second Prong:
The claimed Mathematical Calculations above is neither implemented into any practical application (device or thing), nor effect any transformation/reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing.
STEP 2B: The Additional elements “determining a state of a sensor in the electronic device; and current antenna” in the independent claim 1 could be consider as not significantly more than the abstract idea because relate to insignificant extra solution activity, these additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea. determining a state of a sensor in the electronic device; and current antenna such features were conventional, as best understood, for example Patent NO. CN 113992792 (A) discloses determining a state of a sensor in the electronic device; and current antenna in para [0124]. This claim is therefore directed towards an abstract idea without reciting significantly more, and therefore stands rejected as being directed towards a judicial exception.
5. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 2 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 2 is further recites the element(s) “wherein before the determining a state of a sensor in the electronic device, the method further comprises: determining positions of a plurality of preset frequency channel numbers of different operating frequencies and a free space radius corresponding to each preset frequency channel number; and determining, based on a positions of a preset frequency channel number of each operating frequency and a corresponding free space radius, free space of each preset frequency channel number at a corresponding operating frequency”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 2 includes no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s).
6. Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 3 depends on claim 2, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 3 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as a position of reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point position of the current antenna is located in preset free space comprises: determining, if it is determined that a distance between an impedance point of the current antenna and a corresponding preset frequency channel number is less than or equal to a free space radius corresponding to the preset frequency channel number, that an impedance point position of the current antenna is in the preset free space corresponding to the preset frequency channel number; and using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point position of the current antenna is in the preset free space”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 3 includes no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s).
7. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 4 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 4 is further recites the element(s) “wherein after the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance, the method further comprises: determining a free space position of the impedance point of the current antenna based on the impedance point position of the current antenna and [[the]] a free space radius of the corresponding preset frequency channel number”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 4 includes no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s).
8. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 5 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as a position of reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point position of the current antenna is located in preset free space comprises: using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point of the current antenna is a preset frequency channel number and that the impedance position of the current antenna is in free space corresponding to the preset frequency channel number”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 5 includes no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s).
10. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “separately determining a distance between the impedance point of the current antenna and each preset frequency channel number; comparing each distance with a corresponding preset threshold distance”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 includes no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s).
11. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 7 includes additional elements “wherein the sensor comprises: at least one of a receiver, an ambient light sensor, a distance sensor, an acceleration sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and an optical proximity sensor” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because CN 113992792 (A) discloses wherein the sensor comprises: at least one of a receiver, an ambient light sensor, a distance sensor, an acceleration sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and an optical proximity sensor in para [0143].
12. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 8 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 8 includes additional elements “a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores one or more computer programs, the one or more computer programs comprise instructions, and when the instructions are executed by the processor, the electronic device is enabled to perform the method” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because CN 113992792 (A) discloses a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores one or more computer programs, the one or more computer programs comprise instructions, and when the instructions are executed by the processor, the electronic device is enabled to perform the method in para [0146]-[0151].
13. Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 9 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 9 includes additional elements “A computer storage medium, comprising computer instructions, wherein when the computer instructions are run on an electronic device, the electronic device is enabled to perform the method” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because CN 113992792 (A) discloses a computer storage medium, comprising computer instructions, wherein when the computer instructions are run on an electronic device, the electronic device is enabled to perform the method in para [0146]-[0151].
14. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 11 depends on claim 2, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 11 is further recites the element(s) “wherein after the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance, the method further comprises: determining a free space position of the impedance point of the current antenna based on the impedance point position of the current antenna and the free space radius of the corresponding preset frequency channel number”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 11 includes no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s).
15. Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “wherein after the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance, the method further comprises: determining a free space position of the impedance point of the current antenna based on the impedance point position of the current antenna and the free space radius of the corresponding preset frequency channel number”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 includes no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s).
16. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as a position of reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point position of the current antenna is located in preset free space comprises: using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point of the current antenna is a preset frequency channel number and that the impedance position of the current antenna is in free space corresponding to the preset frequency channel number”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 includes no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s).
17. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as a position of reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point position of the current antenna is located in preset free space comprises: using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point of the current antenna is a preset frequency channel number and that the impedance position of the current antenna is in free space corresponding to the preset frequency channel number”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 includes no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s).
18. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as a position of reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point position of the current antenna is located in preset free space comprises: using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point of the current antenna is a preset frequency channel number and that the impedance position of the current antenna is in free space corresponding to the preset frequency channel number”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 includes no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s).
19. Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point of the current antenna is a preset frequency channel number and that the impedance position of the current antenna is in free space corresponding to the preset frequency channel number comprises: determining, if it is determined that the distance is less than or equal to the corresponding preset threshold distance, that the impedance point of the current antenna is the corresponding preset frequency channel number”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 includes no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s).
20. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 6 depends on claim 5, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
In addition, claim 6 is further recites the element(s) “wherein the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point of the current antenna is a preset frequency channel number and that the impedance position of the current antenna is in free space corresponding to the preset frequency channel number further comprises: using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point of the current antenna is the preset frequency channel number and that the impedance position of the current antenna is in the free space corresponding to the preset frequency channel number”, which are/is simply more mathematical calculations, value numbers, insufficient extra solution activity(s), routine and/or conventional structure(s) previously known to the pertinent industry.
Furthermore, Claim 6 includes no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s).
21. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 7 includes additional elements “wherein the sensor comprises: at least one of a receiver, an ambient light sensor, a distance sensor, an acceleration sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and an optical proximity sensor” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because CN 113992792 (A) discloses wherein the sensor comprises: at least one of a receiver, an ambient light sensor, a distance sensor, an acceleration sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and an optical proximity sensor in para [0143].
22. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 7 includes additional elements “wherein the sensor comprises: at least one of a receiver, an ambient light sensor, a distance sensor, an acceleration sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and an optical proximity sensor” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because CN 113992792 (A) discloses wherein the sensor comprises: at least one of a receiver, an ambient light sensor, a distance sensor, an acceleration sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and an optical proximity sensor in para [0143].
23. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 7 includes additional elements “wherein the sensor comprises: at least one of a receiver, an ambient light sensor, a distance sensor, an acceleration sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and an optical proximity sensor” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because CN 113992792 (A) discloses wherein the sensor comprises: at least one of a receiver, an ambient light sensor, a distance sensor, an acceleration sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and an optical proximity sensor in para [0143].
24. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 7 depends on claim 1, therefore, it has the abstract idea and also has the routine and conventional structure above said claims.
Furthermore, Claim 7 includes additional elements “wherein the sensor comprises: at least one of a receiver, an ambient light sensor, a distance sensor, an acceleration sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and an optical proximity sensor” that are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these/this limitation(s) are/is simply routine and conventional structures because CN 113992792 (A) discloses wherein the sensor comprises: at least one of a receiver, an ambient light sensor, a distance sensor, an acceleration sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and an optical proximity sensor in para [0143].
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 and 11-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a1) as being anticipated by KONG et al. (Patent NO. CN 113992792 (A); hereinafter Kong; translation attached).
Regarding Claim 1, Kong teaches an impedance calibration method, applied to an electronic device, wherein the method (method in Step $201 to $411; See [0052]-[0126]) comprises:
determining a state of a sensor in the electronic device (See [0124]);
obtaining an impedance point position of a current antenna in response to the state of the sensor satisfying a preset condition (step $406-$408; See [0120]-[0122]); and
using the impedance point position of the current antenna as a position of reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point position of the current antenna is in preset free space to calibrate impedance (Step $409; See [0123]).
Regarding Claim 2, Kong teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein before the determining a state of a sensor in the electronic device, the method further comprises: determining positions of a plurality of preset frequency channel numbers of different operating frequencies and a free space radius corresponding to each preset frequency channel number (Step $409; See [0123]); and determining, based on a positions of a preset frequency channel number of each operating frequency and a corresponding free space radius, free space of each preset frequency channel number at a corresponding operating frequency (Step $410-$411; See [0125]-[0127]; See [0123]).
Regarding Claim 3, Kong teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as a position of reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point position of the current antenna is located in preset free space (See [0069]-[0072]) comprises: determining, if it is determined that a distance between an impedance point of the current antenna and a corresponding preset frequency channel number is less than or equal to a free space radius corresponding to the preset frequency channel number, that an impedance point position of the current antenna is in the preset free space corresponding to the preset frequency channel number (See [0069]); and using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point position of the current antenna is in the preset free space (See [0070]-[0072]).
Regarding Claim 4, Kong teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein after the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance See [0071]-[0072]), the method further comprises: determining a free space position of the impedance point of the current antenna based on the impedance point position of the current antenna and a free space radius of the corresponding preset frequency channel number (range is radius; See [0071]-[0072]).
Regarding Claim 5, Kong teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as a position of reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point position of the current antenna is located in preset free space (See [0114]-[0128]) comprises: using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point of the current antenna is a preset frequency channel number and that the impedance position of the current antenna is in free space corresponding to the preset frequency channel number (See [0114]-[0128]).
Regarding Claim 6, Kong teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the method further comprises: separately determining a distance between the impedance point of the current antenna and each preset frequency channel number; comparing each distance with a corresponding preset threshold distance (See [0114]-[0128]);
Regarding Claim 7, Kong teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the sensor comprises: at least one of a receiver, an ambient light sensor, a distance sensor, an acceleration sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and an optical proximity sensor (See [0143]).
Regarding Claim 8, Kong teaches an electronic device, comprising: a processor and a memory, wherein the memory stores one or more computer programs, the one or more computer programs comprise instructions, and when the instructions are executed by the processor (See [0146]), the electronic device is enabled to perform the method according to claim 1.
Regarding Claim 9, Kong teaches a computer storage medium, comprising computer instructions, wherein when the computer instructions are run on an electronic device (See [0146]), the electronic device is enabled to perform the method according to claim 1 (See [0146]).
Regarding Claim 11, Kong teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein after the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance See [0071]-[0072]), the method further comprises: determining a free space position of the impedance point of the current antenna based on the impedance point position of the current antenna and the free space radius of the corresponding preset frequency channel number (range is radius; See [0071]-[0072]).
Regarding Claim 12, Kong teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein after the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance, the method further (See [0071]-[0072]) comprises: determining a free space position of the impedance point of the current antenna based on the impedance point position of the current antenna and the free space radius of the corresponding preset frequency channel number (range is radius; See [0071]-[0072]).
Regarding Claim 13, Kong teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as a position of reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point position of the current antenna is located in preset free space (See [0114]-[0128]) comprises: using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point of the current antenna is a preset frequency channel number and that the impedance position of the current antenna is in free space corresponding to the preset frequency channel number (See [0114]-[0128]).
Regarding Claim 14, Kong teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as a position of reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point position of the current antenna is located in preset free space (See [0114]-[0128]) comprises: using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point of the current antenna is a preset frequency channel number and that the impedance position of the current antenna is in free space corresponding to the preset frequency channel number (See [0114]-[0128]).
Regarding Claim 15, Kong teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as a position of reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point position of the current antenna is located in preset free space (See [0114]-[0128]) comprises: using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point of the current antenna is a preset frequency channel number and that the impedance position of the current antenna is in free space corresponding to the preset frequency channel number (See [0114]-[0128]).
Regarding Claim 16, Kong teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point of the current antenna is a preset frequency channel number and that the impedance position of the current antenna is in free space corresponding to the preset frequency channel number (See [0114]-[0128]) comprises: determining, if it is determined that the distance is less than or equal to the corresponding preset threshold distance, that the impedance point of the current antenna is the corresponding preset frequency channel number (See [0114]-[0128]).
Regarding Claim 17, Kong teaches the method according to claim 6, wherein the using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point of the current antenna is a preset frequency channel number and that the impedance position of the current antenna is in free space corresponding to the preset frequency channel number (See [0114]-[0128]) further comprises: using the impedance point position of the current antenna as the position of the reference impedance if it is determined that the impedance point of the current antenna is the preset frequency channel number and that the impedance position of the current antenna is in the free space corresponding to the preset frequency channel number (See [0114]-[0128]).
Regarding Claim 18, Kong teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein the sensor comprises: at least one of a receiver, an ambient light sensor, a distance sensor, an acceleration sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and an optical proximity sensor (See [0143]).
Regarding Claim 19, Kong teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the sensor comprises: at least one of a receiver, an ambient light sensor, a distance sensor, an acceleration sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and an optical proximity sensor (See [0143]).
Regarding Claim 20, Kong teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein the sensor comprises: at least one of a receiver, an ambient light sensor, a distance sensor, an acceleration sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and an optical proximity sensor (See [0143]).
Regarding Claim 21, Kong teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the sensor comprises: at least one of a receiver, an ambient light sensor, a distance sensor, an acceleration sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and an optical proximity sensor (See [0143]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chen et al. (Pub NO. US 2017/0023428 A1) discloses Impedance sensor using Temperature Variation.
STULRAJTER et al. (Pub NO. US 2016/0161562 A1) discloses Detecting Impedance using current, voltage.
Wang et al. (Patent NO. US 10,571,538 B2) discloses Diagnostic Device based in impedance response.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZANNATUL FERDOUS whose telephone number is (571)270-0399. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday 8am to 5pm (PST).
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, Rodak Lee can be reached at 571-270-5628. 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.
/ZANNATUL FERDOUS/Examiner, Art Unit 2858
/JERMELE M HOLLINGTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858
Prosecution Insights