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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 12-14, and 20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 9, and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,160,258. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
As to instant claim 1, conflicting claim 9 includes all the claimed limitations.
As to instant claim 12, conflicting claim 9 includes all the claimed limitations.
As to instant claim 13, conflicting claim 9 includes all the claimed limitations.
As to instant claim 14, conflicting claim 20 includes all the claimed limitations.
As to instant claim 20, conflicting claim 9 includes all the claimed limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 9, 12-14, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winslow (US 2021/0136601).
As to claim 1, Winslow discloses a method for wireless communications, comprising: receiving a measured impedance value corresponding to a current user interaction state with respect to one or more antennas of a mobile device (see paragraphs [0046], [0048], [0081], [0082]); determining a user interaction stability state of the mobile device based on the measured impedance value and a set of historical impedance values (see paragraph [0071]); classifying, using a machine learning model, the current user interaction state as one of a plurality of user interaction states associated with a position of the mobile device relative to a user of the mobile device (see paragraphs [0041], [0059], [0071]); and tuning the one or more antennas based on the classified current user interaction state and the determined user interaction stability state of the mobile device (see paragraphs [0071], [0073], [0074], [0083]).
As to claims 9, 18, Winslow discloses determining the user interaction stability state of the mobile device comprises determining that the mobile device has reached a steady state different from a state associated with a last stable measured impedance value, including identifying a match between the classified current user interaction state and classifications for each of a plurality of user interaction states associated with prior impedance values in the set of historical impedance values measured within a time window prior to the measured impedance value corresponding to the current user interaction state. See paragraph [0074].
As to claim 12, Winslow discloses that the machine learning model is trained to classify at least the measured impedance value and a plurality of impedance values from the set of historical impedance values into one of a plurality of user interaction states. See paragraphs [0041], [0059], [0061].
As to claim 13, Winslow discloses that the machine learning model is trained to classify the current user interaction state based at least on the measured impedance value and a plurality of impedance values from the set of historical impedance values. See paragraphs [0041], [0059], [0061].
As to claim 14, it is rejected for similar reasons regarding independent claim 1 as set forth above. In addition, Winslow discloses one or more antennas 814 (see at least figure 8), “a memory having executable instructions stored thereon” 824; and “one or more processors configured to execute the executable instructions” 802.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Winslow.
As to claim 20, it is rejected for similar reasons regarding independent claim 1 as set forth above. Regarding the claimed limitations “A system-on-a-chip (SoC)” in the preamble, when reading the preamble in the context of the entire claim, the recitation “A system-on-a-chip (SoC)” is not limiting because the body of the claim describes a complete invention and the language recited solely in the preamble does not provide any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations. Thus, the preamble of the claim(s) is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction. See Pitney Bowes, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 182 F.3d 1298, 1305, 51 USPQ2d 1161, 1165 (Fed. Cir. 1999). See MPEP § 2111.02.
Or in the alternative, the examiner takes Official Notice that such “a system-on-a-chip (SoC)” is known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Winslow as claimed, in order to reduce the weight, size, and implementing cost of the communication apparatus.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 10-11, 15-17, 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
As to claims 2-6, 15, the prior art of record fail to disclose determining the user interaction stability state of the mobile device comprises determining that the mobile device has reached a steady state different from a state associated with a last stable measured impedance value including: detecting that a change in impedance between consecutive measurements in the set of historical impedance values exceeds a threshold value; subsequent to detecting that the change exceeds the threshold value, detecting a convergence on a value from the set of historical impedance values and the measured impedance value; and based on detecting the convergence on the value, determining that the mobile device has reached the steady state different from the state associated with the last stable measured impedance value.
As to claims 7-8, 16-17, the prior art of record fail to disclose determining the user interaction stability state of the mobile device comprises determining that the mobile device has reached a steady state different from a state associated with a last stable measured impedance value including: determining a moving average of impedance values in the set of historical impedance values; based on determining that the measured impedance value is more than a threshold amount away from the determined moving average, determining that the current user interaction state is different from a previous user interaction state; and subsequent to determining that the current user interaction state is different from the previous user interaction state, determining that the measured impedance value and one or more previously measured historical impedance values have converged.
As to claims 10-11, 19, the prior art of record fail to disclose classifying one or more prior user interaction states associated with impedance values measured within a threshold amount of time prior to the measured impedance value corresponding to the current user interaction state; determining that a classification of the current user interaction state and a classification of the one or more prior user interaction states are different; and identifying a user interaction state from the current user interaction state and the one or more prior user interaction states, the identified user interaction state being associated with a quality metric having a better value from a set of quality metrics associated with the current user interaction state and the one or more prior user interaction states, wherein tuning the one or more antennas comprises tuning the antennas to an antenna tuner configuration associated with the identified user interaction state.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim (US 2011/0065429 A1); El-Rayis (US 2016/0006476 A1); Mendolia (US 8,655,286 B2) disclose antenna tuning in mobile communication terminals.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NGUYEN THANH VO whose telephone number is (571)272-7901. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Jeanette J Parker can be reached at (571) 270-3647. 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.
/NGUYEN T VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646
