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 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. US 12,207,204. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 is generic to all that is recited in claims 1 and 1 of the patent. That is, claim 1 is anticipated by claims 1 and 11 of the patent. Broad claims in continuation application are rejected as obvious double patenting over previously narrow claims. For example, claim 1 of the present invention is the same as claim 1 of the patent except that the “an antenna system configured to transmit and receive radio signals” and “determining whether the inertial sensor data indicates that the apparatus is being held, is being carried or is on a person's body” limitation was not recited. Therefore, claim 1 is broader than claim 1 of the patent.
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) 1,5,7,8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 8,886,247) (IDS) in view of Kang et al. (US 2017/0244827) (IDS) and Rimini (US 2020/0336222).
Regarding claims 1 and 5, Price et al. discloses an apparatus (user device/mobile phone) (fig. 1 number 104, fig. 3 number 300, col. 3 lines 40-43 and col. 11 lines 13-20), comprising: an inertial sensor system (one or more inertial sensor) (fig. 3 number 399 and col. 12 lines 5-19) including at least one inertial sensor (fig. 3 number 399 and col. 12 lines 5-19); a proximity sensor system (i.e. one or more proximity sensors) (fig. 3 number 366 and col. 11 lines 37-39) including at least one proximity sensor (fig. 3 number 366 and col. 11 lines 37-39); and a control system (fig. 3 number 330) configured for: receiving inertial sensor data from the inertial sensor system (col. 12 lines 19-23); determining whether the inertial sensor data indicates that the apparatus is being held (detection of the hand) (fig. 5 number 599), the user device within the hand (fig. 5 numbers 505 and 599), is being carried or is on a person's body (fig. 5, col. 15 lines 58-col. 16 line 8). Price et al. differs from claim 1 of the present invention in that it does not explicit disclose deactivate the proximity sensor system in accordance with a maximum permissible exposure limit associated with the mobile device and responsive to the inertial sensor data indicating that the mobile device is being held, is being carried, or is on a person's body. Kang et al. teaches an electronic device (abstract), comprising deactivating a proximity sensor system if a processor (460)(P:0115) determines that a inertial sensor (motion sensor) (423) indicates that the apparatus is being held (user holding the electronic device)(P:0115). Kang et al. further teaches when detecting no movement of the electronic device 400 or detecting the user's walking (i.e. acceleration threshold), the first processor 460 can provide second notification information to the second processor 470. Based on the second notification information, the second processor 470 can return the display 440 to the original state and thus display contents on the display 440 (i.e. determining whether the inertial sensor data indicates accelerations equal to or exceeding an acceleration threshold)(P:0116). Rimini teaches to address MPE proximity sensor failure and keep the mobile device within regulatory limits for exposure, a mobile device may include a maximum permissible exposure (MPE) sensor control unit to actively monitor the transmitted and received signals associated with the MPE proximity sensors to verify that the MPE proximity sensor is operating properly. Upon detecting an anomaly in any of these signals, such as a value drop below a given threshold or other indication that the MPE proximity sensor is not functioning properly, the MPE proximity sensor control unit 280 will inform the AP (application processor, or other processor or controller) which in would control a display on the device to show a warning message on informing the end user about the sensor malfunction, requesting that the device not be used and/or requesting that the device be repaired. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Price et al. with deactivate the proximity sensor system in accordance with a maximum permissible exposure limit associated with the mobile device and responsive to the inertial sensor data indicating that the mobile device is being held, is being carried, or is on a person's body in order to deactivate the proximity sensor since the user is holding the user device when transmitting a telephone call to a distant party that meets the maximum exposure limit that would not harm the user body, as taught by Kang et al. and Rimini..
Regarding claim 7, Price et al. discloses the inertial sensor system includes at least one accelerometer or at least one gyroscope (col. 12 lines 10-12).
Regarding claim 8, Price et al. discloses an antenna system (one or more antennas) configured to transmit and receive radio signals (col. 11 lines 18-25).
Regarding claim 20, Price et al. discloses a method of controlling a mobile device (user device)(abstract and fig. 7 number 700), comprising: an inertial sensor system (one or more inertial sensor) (fig. 3 number 399 and col. 12 lines 5-19) including at least one inertial sensor (fig. 3 number 399 and col. 12 lines 5-19); a proximity sensor system (i.e. one or more proximity sensors) (fig. 3 number 366 and col. 11 lines 37-39) including at least one proximity sensor (fig. 3 number 366 and col. 11 lines 37-39); and a control system (fig. 3 number 330) configured for: receiving inertial sensor data from the inertial sensor system (col. 12 lines 19-23); determining whether the inertial sensor data indicates that the apparatus is being held (detection of the hand) (fig. 5 number 599), the user device within the hand (fig. 5 numbers 505 and 599), is being carried or is on a person's body (fig. 5, col. 15 lines 58-col. 16 line 8). Price et al. differs from claim 20 of the present invention in that it does not explicit disclose deactivate the proximity sensor system in accordance with a maximum permissible exposure limit associated with the mobile device and responsive to the inertial sensor data indicating that the mobile device is being held, is being carried, or is on a person's body. Kang et al. teaches an electronic device (abstract), comprising deactivating a proximity sensor system if a processor (460)(P:0115) determines that a inertial sensor (motion sensor) (423) indicates that the apparatus is being held (user holding the electronic device)(P:0115). Kang et al. further teaches when detecting no movement of the electronic device 400 or detecting the user's walking (i.e. acceleration threshold), the first processor 460 can provide second notification information to the second processor 470. Based on the second notification information, the second processor 470 can return the display 440 to the original state and thus display contents on the display 440 (i.e. determining whether the inertial sensor data indicates accelerations equal to or exceeding an acceleration threshold)(P:0116). Rimini teaches to address MPE proximity sensor failure and keep the mobile device within regulatory limits for exposure, a mobile device may include a maximum permissible exposure (MPE) sensor control unit to actively monitor the transmitted and received signals associated with the MPE proximity sensors to verify that the MPE proximity sensor is operating properly. Upon detecting an anomaly in any of these signals, such as a value drop below a given threshold or other indication that the MPE proximity sensor is not functioning properly, the MPE proximity sensor control unit 280 will inform the AP (application processor, or other processor or controller) which in would control a display on the device to show a warning message on informing the end user about the sensor malfunction, requesting that the device not be used and/or requesting that the device be repaired. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Price et al. with deactivate the proximity sensor system in accordance with a maximum permissible exposure limit associated with the mobile device and responsive to the inertial sensor data indicating that the mobile device is being held, is being carried, or is on a person's body in order to deactivate the proximity sensor since the user is holding the user device when transmitting a telephone call to a distant party that meets the maximum exposure limit that would not harm the user body, as taught by Kang et al. and Rimini..
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 8,886,247) (IDS) in view of Kang et al. (US 2017/0244827) (IDS) and Rimini (US 2020/0336222) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0107296).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, the combination of Price et al., Kang et al. and Rimini differs from claim 2 and 3 of the present invention in that they do not explicit disclose a portion of the control system is included in a wearable device and a first portion included in a wearable device, and a second portion included in the mobile device. Zhang et al. teaches UE 102 can be a mobile device such as a cellular phone, a smartphone, a tablet computer, a wearable device (P:0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Price et al., Kang et al. and Rimini with a portion of the control system is included in a wearable device and a first portion included in a wearable device, and a second portion included in the mobile device in order for the mobile phone to be connected to the users belt for handsfree when communicating with a distant party, as taught by Zhang et al. .
5. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 8,886,247) (IDS) in view of Kang et al. (US 2017/0244827) (IDS) and Rimini (US 2020/0336222) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Rosen (US 2015/0054639).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Price et al., Kang et al. and Rimini differs from claim 4 of the present invention in that they do not explicit disclose determine that the inertial sensor data indicates that the mobile device is being held, is being carried, or is on the person's body based on determining whether the inertial sensor data indicates micro-motions characteristic of human contact. Rosen teaches the accelerometer of the mobile phone may be used to detect the vibrations/tremors associated with the person's hand holding the mobile phone (P:0272). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Price et al., Kang et al. and Rimini with determine that the inertial sensor data indicates that the mobile device is being held, is being carried, or is on the person's body based on determining whether the inertial sensor data indicates micro-motions characteristic of human contact in order to allow the user holding the user device to transmitting a telephone call to a distant party that would meets the maximum exposure limit that would not harm the user from radiation, as taught by Rosen.
6. Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 8,886,247) (IDS) in view of Kang et al. (US 2017/0244827) (IDS) and Rimini (US 2020/0336222) as applied to claim 1 above in further view of Lefebre (US 10,578,640) (IDS).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Price et al., Kang et al. and Rimini differs from claim 6 of the present invention in that they do not explicit disclose implement, via the control system, a neural network trained to determine whether the inertial sensor data indicates that the mobile device is being held, is being carried or is on a person's body. held, is being carried or is on a person's body. Lefebre teaches implementing, via device fitted with inertial sensors (col. 13, claim 1), a neural network (neural learning process) trained to determine whether the inertial sensor data indicates that the apparatus is carried by the user (col. 13, claim 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Price et al., Kang et al. and Rimini with implementing, via the control system, a neural network trained to determine whether the inertial sensor data indicates that the apparatus is being held, is being carried or is on a person's body in order to provide a function approximation, or regression analysis, including time series prediction and modeling when determining the motion and proximity of the user device carried by the user, as taught by Lefebre.
7. Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 8,886,247) (IDS) in view of Kang et al. (US 2017/0244827) (IDS) and Rimini (US 2020/0336222) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above in further view of Leabman (US 2022/0045554).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Price et al., Kang et al. and Rimini differs from claim 9 of the present invention in that they do not explicit disclose lower a transmission power of the antenna system or cease transmission by the antenna system responsive to the inertial sensor data indicating that the apparatus is being held, is being carried, or is on the person's body. Leabman teaches a gyroscope can determine orientation of the electronic device, whereby a particular orientation may be associated with an interaction with a sensitive object (e.g., a human holding a phone to his head or a phone in a pocket), whereas other orientations may be associated with a lack of interaction with a sensitive object (e.g., laying horizontal, especially when in conjunction with lack of movement determined by the accelerometer and further when in conjunction with the passage of a threshold time period since movement last occurred). Even small movements detected by a gyroscope may indicate that the electronic device may be in the presence of or may being held by a human being, so transmission should cease. The gyroscope of the electronic device 91100 can measure a rate of rotation of the electronic device 91100 around a particular axis and is able to sense motion including both vertical and horizontal rotation of the electronic device 91100 (P:2276), The measured period of the time by the clock 91110 may indicate a time-period during which there is a risk that the transmission of power waves to charge or power the electronic device 91100 may expose the user to unsafe or undesirable radiation levels as the user may be less than a pre-defined proximity to the electronic device 91100 (P:2276). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Price et al., Kang et al. and Rimini with lower a transmission power of the antenna system or cease transmission by the antenna system responsive to the inertial sensor data indicating that the apparatus is being held, is being carried, or is on the person's body in order to cease transmission and prevent the user from unsafe radiation from the user equipment that is in motion and held in the user hand when transmitting a telephone call to a distant party, as taught by Leabman.
8. Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 8,886,247) (IDS) in view of Kang et al. (US 2017/0244827) (IDS) and Rimini (US 2020/0336222) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above in further view of Sudo et al. (US 2021/0005955)(IDS).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Price et al., Kang et al. and Rimini differs from claim 10 of the present invention in that they do not explicit disclose the antenna system is configured to transmit at least some radio signals at frequencies of 6 gigahertz or more. Sudo et al. teaches a mobile terminal (fig. 1 number 10) comprising an antenna module (fig. 1 number 100 and P:0025) is configured to transmit at least some radio signals at requencies of 6 gigahertz or more (P:0006 and P:0025) and a plurality of antenna elements is configured to transmit beamformed radio signals (P:0006). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify to modify the combination of Price et al., Kang et al. and Rimini with the antenna system is configured to transmit at least some radio signals at frequencies of 6 gigahertz or more and the antenna system is configured to transmit beamformed radio signals in order for the user device antenna system to transmit data in 5G, so that an increase in the communication speed and improvement in the communication quality are aimed to be achieved, as taught by Sudo et al..
9. Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 8,886,247) (IDS) in view of Kang et al. (US 2017/0244827) (IDS) and Rimini (US 2020/0336222) as applied to claims 1 and 8 above in further view of Brunel (US 2020/0076488).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Price et al., Kang et al. and Rimini differs from claim 11 of the present invention in that they do not explicit disclose the antenna system is configured to transmit beamformed radio signals. Brunel teaches a mobile device comprising an antenna array configured to transmit beamformed radio signals (fig. 6a and P:0208). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary to skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination Price et al., Kang et al. and Rimini with the antenna system is configured to transmit beamformed radio signals in order for the user device to steer a beam toward a base station for wireless location services when determining its location, as taught by Brunel..
10. Claim(s) 12,13 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 8,886,247) (IDS) in view of Kang et al. (US 2017/0244827) (IDS).
Regarding claims 12 and 13, Price et al. discloses an apparatus (user device/mobile phone) (fig. 1 number 104, fig. 3 number 300, col. 3 lines 40-43 and col. 11 lines 13-20), comprising: an inertial sensor system (one or more inertial sensor) (fig. 3 number 399 and col. 12 lines 5-19) including at least one inertial sensor (fig. 3 number 399 and col. 12 lines 5-19); a proximity sensor system (i.e. one or more proximity sensors) (fig. 3 number 366 and col. 11 lines 37-39) including at least one proximity sensor (fig. 3 number 366 and col. 11 lines 37-39); and a control system (fig. 3 number 330) configured for: receiving inertial sensor data from the inertial sensor system (col. 12 lines 19-23); determining whether the inertial sensor data indicates that the apparatus is being held (detection of the hand) (fig. 5 number 599), the user device within the hand (fig. 5 numbers 505 and 599), is being carried or is on a person's body (fig. 5, col. 15 lines 58-col. 16 line 8). Price et al. differs from claim 12 of the present invention in that it does not explicit disclose deactivate the proximity sensor system responsive to the inertial sensor data indicating one or more accelerations equal to or exceeding an acceleration threshold. Kang et al. teaches an electronic device (abstract), comprising deactivating a proximity sensor system if a processor (460)(P:0115) determines that a inertial sensor (motion sensor) (423) indicates that the apparatus is being held (i.e. no motion and/or data indicating equal acceleration threshold, the user holding the electronic device)(P:0115). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Price et al. with deactivate the proximity sensor system responsive to the inertial sensor data indicating one or more accelerations equal to or exceeding an acceleration threshold in order to deactivate the proximity sensor since the user is holding the user device when transmitting a telephone call to a distant party which minimizes component processing within the user device, as taught by Kang et al. and Rimini.
Regarding claim 16, Price et al. discloses an antenna system (one or more antennas) configured to transmit and receive radio signals (col. 11 lines 18-25).
11. Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 8,886,247) (IDS) in view of Kang et al. (US 2017/0244827) (IDS) as applied to claims 12 and 16 above in further view of Leabman (US 2022/0045554).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Price et al. and Kang et al. differs from claim 17 of the present invention in that they do not explicit disclose lower a transmission power of the antenna system or cease transmission by the antenna system responsive to the inertial sensor data indicating the one or more accelerations equal to or exceeding the acceleration threshold. Leabman teaches a gyroscope can determine orientation of the electronic device, whereby a particular orientation may be associated with an interaction with a sensitive object (e.g., a human holding a phone to his head or a phone in a pocket), whereas other orientations may be associated with a lack of interaction with a sensitive object (e.g., laying horizontal, especially when in conjunction with lack of movement determined by the accelerometer and further when in conjunction with the passage of a threshold time period since movement last occurred). Even small movements detected by a gyroscope may indicate that the electronic device may be in the presence of or may being held by a human being, so transmission should cease. The gyroscope of the electronic device 91100 can measure a rate of rotation of the electronic device 91100 around a particular axis and is able to sense motion including both vertical and horizontal rotation of the electronic device 91100 (P:2276), The measured period of the time by the clock 91110 may indicate a time-period during which there is a risk that the transmission of power waves to charge or power the electronic device 91100 may expose the user to unsafe or undesirable radiation levels as the user may be less than a pre-defined proximity to the electronic device 91100 (P:2276). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Price et al. and Kang et al. with lower a transmission power of the antenna system or cease transmission by the antenna system responsive to the inertial sensor data indicating the one or more accelerations equal to or exceeding the acceleration threshold in order to cease transmission and prevent the user from unsafe radiation from the user equipment that is in motion and held in the user hand when transmitting a telephone call to a distant party, as taught by Leabman.
12. Claim(s) 14 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 8,886,247) (IDS) in view of Kang et al. (US 2017/0244827) (IDS) as applied to claim 12 above in further view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0107296) .
Regarding claims 14 and 15, the combination of Price et al., and Kang et al. differs from claims 14 and 15 of the present invention in that they do not explicit disclose a portion of the control system is included in a wearable device and a first portion included in a wearable device, and a second portion included in the mobile device. Zhang et al. teaches UE 102 can be a mobile device such as a cellular phone, a smartphone, a tablet computer, a wearable device (P:0030). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of the combination of Price et al., and Kang et al. with a portion of the control system is included in a wearable device and a first portion included in a wearable device, and a second portion included in the mobile device in order for the mobile phone to be connected to the users belt for handsfree when communicating with a distant party, as taught by Zhang et al. .
13. Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 8,886,247) (IDS) in view of Kang et al. (US 2017/0244827) (IDS) as applied to claims 12 and 16 above in further view of Sudo et al. (US 2021/0005955)(IDS).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Price et al., and Kang et al. differs from claim 18 of the present invention in that they do not explicit disclose the antenna system is configured to transmit at least some radio signals at frequencies of 6 gigahertz or more. Sudo et al. teaches a mobile terminal (fig. 1 number 10) comprising an antenna module (fig. 1 number 100 and P:0025) is configured to transmit at least some radio signals at frequencies of 6 gigahertz or more (P:0006 and P:0025) and a plurality of antenna elements is configured to transmit beamformed radio signals (P:0006). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify to modify the combination of Price et al., and Kang et al. with the antenna system is configured to transmit at least some radio signals at frequencies of 6 gigahertz or more and the antenna system is configured to transmit beamformed radio signals in order for the user device antenna system to transmit data in 5G, so that an increase in the communication speed and improvement in the communication quality are aimed to be achieved, as taught by Sudo et al..
14. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al. (US 8,886,247) (IDS) in view of Kang et al. (US 2017/0244827) (IDS) as applied to claims 12 and 16 above in further view of Brunel (US 2020/0076488).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Price et al., and Kang et al. differs from claim 19 of the present invention in that they do not explicit disclose the antenna system is configured to transmit beamformed radio signals. Brunel teaches a mobile device comprising an antenna array configured to transmit beamformed radio signals (fig. 6a and P:0208). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary to skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the combination Price et al., and Kang et al. with the antenna system is configured to transmit beamformed radio signals in order for the user device to steer a beam toward a base station for wireless location services when determining its location, as taught by Brunel..
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Schub et al. (US 2014/0315592) discloses a wireless device with dynamically adjusted maximum transmit powers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH FERGUSON whose telephone number is (571)272-7865. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am -3 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 L 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.
/KEITH FERGUSON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights