Or 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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 24, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants submit that nowhere in Klomsdorf and Han is there any mention of detection of a blocking entity positioned near the UE.
As discussed below in the rejection, Examiner submits that Islam teaches of the amended limitation of detection of a blocking entity positioned near the UE. Therefore, the combination of Klomsdorf, Han and Islam teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 13.
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.
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.
Claims 1 – 3, 5, 7 – 11, 13 – 18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klomsdorf et al (US 2022/0182473) in view of Han et al (US 2021/0250683) and further in view of Islam et al (US 2022/0255239).
Re claims 1 and 13, Klomsdorf teaches of an apparatus and a method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE) (UE, Figures 1 – 6 and 10), comprising: at least one memory (#1012, Fig.10); and at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory (#1008, #1010, Fig.10), and based at least in part on information stored in the at least one memory (Paragraphs 0084 and 0087 – 0091), the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: detect a change (#124, Fig.1, the orientation module 124 includes an orientation sensor that detects changes in device orientation, Paragraph 0024) between a first physical operational status (a folded orientation mode (“folded mode”) 304, Paragraph 0028, Fig.3) and a second physical operational status (open orientation mode (“open mode”) 308, Paragraph 0029, Fig.3), wherein the first physical operational status and the second physical operational status are based on a position of a first component (#120a, Figures 1, 2a and 2b) and a second component (#120b, Figures 1, 2a and 2b) of a foldable screen at the UE (display screen #116, Figures 1, 2a and 2b); and indicate an operation mode of a set of antennas at the UE based on the change between the first physical operational status and the second physical operational status (different operation modes (Figures 5 – 6) of the set of antennas at the UE based on whether it’s an open mode 308 (Fig. 5) or folded mode 304 (Fig. 6)). However, Klomsdorf does not specifically mention of detecting the position of the first component and second component of the foldable screen at the UE is based on a metric of the first component and the second component of the foldable screen at the UE. Klomsdorf does not specifically teach of wherein the first physical operational status and the second physical operational status are based on detection of a blocking entity positioned near the UE.
Han teaches of detecting a physical operational status (open mode, folded mode, Fig.5) based on a metric of the first component (#310, Fig.2) and the second component (#320, Fig.2) of the foldable screen at the UE (angle, Fig.5) (Paragraphs 0132 and 0204).
Islam teaches of wherein a first physical operational status (Fig.2A) and a second physical operational status (Fig.2C) are based on a position of a first component (#211a, Figures 2A – 2C) and a second component (#211b, Figures 2A – 2C) or detection of a blocking entity positioned near the UE (blocking, Paragraphs 0018 and 0048 and #614, Fig.6A and #628, Fig.6C).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have detected the change of the physical operational status based on the angle to identify the folding mode of the UE. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the first and second physical operational status based on detection of a blocking entity positioned near the UE so as to perform antenna diversity with antennas that are not blocked for efficient communication.
Re claim 20, Klomsdorf, Han and Islam teach of a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing computer executable code at a user equipment (UE), the code when executed by a processor causes the processor (Paragraph 0090 of Klomsdorf) to: detect a change between a first physical operational status and a second physical operational status, wherein the first physical operational status and the second physical operational status are based on at least one of a metric associated with a first component and a second component of a foldable screen at the UE and a blocking entity positioned near the UE; and indicate an operation mode of a set of antennas at the UE based on the change between the first physical operational status and the second physical operational status (see claims 1 and 13).
Re claims 2 and 14, Klomsdorf, Han and Islam teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 13, as well as Han teaches of wherein the metric is a hinge angle (angle, Fig.5) (Paragraphs 0132 and 0204) of the first component and the second component, and wherein the hinge angle of the first component and the second component is within a first range in the first physical operational status (a close mode corresponding to an angle range of 0° to 10°, Paragraph 0132), and wherein the hinge angle of the first component and the second component is within a second range in the second physical operational status (the first mode (e.g., the open mode) may be configured to correspond to a specific angle (e.g., 180°) or to corresponding to a specific angle range (e.g., 131° to 180°), Paragraph 0132).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the metric be a hinge angle of being within a range to identify the folding mode of the UE.
Re claims 3 and 15, Klomsdorf, Han and Islam teach all the limitations of claims 2 and 13, as well as Klomsdorf teaches of wherein the first physical operational status corresponds to a closed mode where the first range comprises zero degrees (folded mode is zero degrees, Fig.3) and the second physical operational status corresponds to an open mode where the second range comprises one hundred and eighty degrees (open mode is 180 degrees, Fig.3), wherein the change is from the first physical operational status to the second physical operational status, and wherein to configure the operation mode of the set of antennas at the UE based on the change between the first physical operational status and the second physical operational status (Fig.4). Islam further teaches of enabling antenna receive diversity (ARD) (spatial diversity, Paragraph 0030) of an order higher than a threshold (more than two antennas are required to perform spatial diversity, Paragraph 0030) based on the change from the first physical operational status to the second physical operational status (different positions: (i) fully closed; (ii) open 90°; and (iii) fully open may be used to enable spatial diversity, Paragraph 0030, #109. Fig.3A) (Paragraphs 0018 and 0042).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have enabled antenna receive diversity (ARD) of an order higher than a threshold based on the change from the first physical operational status to the second physical operational status so as to improve wireless link reliability and increases data speeds.
Re claim 5, Klomsdorf, Han and Islam teach all the limitations of claim 2, as well as Klomsdorf teaches of wherein the first physical operational status corresponds to a closed mode where the first range comprises zero degrees (folded mode is zero degrees, Fig.3) and the second physical operational status corresponds to an open mode where the second range comprises one hundred and eighty degrees (open mode is 180 degrees, Fig.3), wherein the change is from the second physical operational status to the first physical operational status, and wherein to configure the operation mode of the set of antennas at the UE based on the change between the first physical operational status and the second physical operational status (Fig.4). Islam teaches of enabling antenna receive diversity (ARD) (spatial diversity, Paragraph 0030) of an order higher than a threshold (more than two antennas are required to perform spatial diversity, Paragraph 0030) based on the change from the first physical operational status to the second physical operational status (different positions: (i) fully closed; (ii) open 90°; and (iii) fully open may be used to enable spatial diversity, Paragraph 0030, #109. Fig.3B) (Paragraphs 0018 and 0042).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have enabled antenna receive diversity (ARD) of an order higher than a threshold based on the change from the first physical operational status to the second physical operational status so as to improve wireless link reliability and increases data speeds.
Re claim 7, Klomsdorf teaches of wherein the first physical operational status corresponds to a closed mode where the first range comprises zero degrees (folded mode is zero degrees, Fig.3) and the second physical operational status corresponds to an open mode where the second range comprises one hundred and eighty degrees (open mode is 180 degrees, Fig.3), wherein the change is from the first physical operational status to the second physical operational status, and wherein to configure the operation mode of the set of antennas at the UE based on the change between the first physical operational status and the second physical operational status (Figures 3 – 4), the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: change or disable one or more conditions associated with enablement of antenna receive diversity (ARD) of an order higher than a threshold based on the change from the first physical operational status to the second physical operational status (A change from the folded mode of Fig.6 to the open mode of Fig.5 will change the number of active antennas by enabling antennas #108a and #108b for antenna switch diversity (ASDiv), Fig.5).
Re claim 8, Klomsdorf teaches of wherein the first physical operational status corresponds to a closed mode where the first range comprises zero degrees (folded mode is zero degrees, Fig.3) and the second physical operational status corresponds to an open mode where the second range comprises one hundred and eighty degrees (open mode is 180 degrees, Fig.3), wherein the change is from the second physical operational status to the first physical operational status, and wherein to configure the operation mode of the set of antennas at the UE based on the change between the first physical operational status and the second physical operational status (Figures 3 – 4), the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: change one or more conditions associated with enablement of antenna receive diversity (ARD) of an order higher than a threshold based on the change from the second physical operational status to the first physical operational status (A change from the open mode of Fig.5 to the folded mode of Fig.6 will change the number of active antennas by disabling antennas #108a and #108b for antenna switch diversity (ASDiv), Fig.6).
Re claims 9 and 16, Klomsdorf teaches of wherein to detect the change between the first physical operational status and the second physical operational status, the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: detect the change based on an input from a hinge detector (hinge, #118, Fig.1 and #124, Fig.1, Paragraph 0024).
Re claims 10 and 17, Klomsdorf, Han and Islam teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 13, as well as Islam teaches of wherein the blocking entity blocks at least one antenna of the set of antennas in the second physical operational status (Paragraphs 0018 and 0048, Figures 6A – 6B), and wherein to configure the operation mode of the set of antennas at the UE based on the change between the first physical operational status and the second physical operational status (antenna switch diversity, Paragraph 0018 and Figures 3 – 4 and 6), the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: enable antenna receive diversity (ARD) (spatial diversity, Paragraphs 0018 and 0030) of an order higher than a threshold (more than two antennas are required to perform spatial diversity, Paragraph 0030) based on the change being from the first physical operational status to the second physical operational status (different positions: (i) fully closed; (ii) open 90°; and (iii) fully open may be used to enable spatial diversity, Paragraph 0030, #109. Fig.3A) (Paragraphs 0018 and 0042).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have enabled antenna receive diversity (ARD) of an order higher than a threshold based on the change from the first physical operational status to the second physical operational status so as to improve wireless link reliability and increases data speeds.
Re claims 11 and 18, Klomsdorf, Han and Islam teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 13, as well as Islam teaches of wherein the blocking entity blocks at least one antenna of the set of antennas in the second physical operational status (Paragraphs 0018 and 0048, Figures 6A – 6B), and wherein to configure the operation mode of the set of antennas at the UE based on the change between the first physical operational status and the second physical operational status (antenna switch diversity, Paragraph 0018 and Figures 3 – 4 and 6), the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: disable the at least one antenna (communication workload can be shifted to the third antenna, presuming that the first antenna is also blocked, Paragraph 0049) and enable a corresponding quantity of alternative antennas based on the change being from the first physical operational status to the second physical operational status (different positions: (i) fully closed; (ii) open 90°; and (iii) fully open may be used to enable spatial diversity, Paragraph 0030, #109. Fig.3A) (Paragraphs 0018 and 0042).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have enabled antenna receive diversity (ARD) without using the blocked antenna based on the change from the first physical operational status to the second physical operational status so as to improve wireless link reliability and increases data speeds.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klomsdorf, Han and Islam in view of Ulupinar et al (US 2010/0210235).
Re claim 4, Klomsdorf, Han and Islam teach all the limitations of claim 2, as well as Klomsdorf teaches of wherein the first physical operational status corresponds to a closed mode where the first range comprises zero degrees (folded mode is zero degrees, Fig.3) and the second physical operational status corresponds to an open mode where the second range comprises one hundred and eighty degrees (open mode is 180 degrees, Fig.3), wherein the change is from the second physical operational status to the first physical operational status, and wherein to configure the operation mode of the set of antennas at the UE based on the change between the first physical operational status and the second physical operational status (Fig.4). Islam teaches of enabling antenna receive diversity (ARD) (spatial diversity, Paragraph 0030) of an order higher than a threshold (more than two antennas are required to perform spatial diversity, Paragraph 0030) based on the change from the first physical operational status to the second physical operational status (different positions: (i) fully closed; (ii) open 90°; and (iii) fully open may be used to enable spatial diversity, Paragraph 0030, #109, Fig.3B) (Paragraphs 0018 and 0042). However, Klomsdorf, Han and Islam do not specifically teach of the at least one processor configured to cause the UE to: disable antenna receive diversity (ARD) of an order higher than a threshold based on the change from the second physical operational status to the first physical operational status.
Ulipinar teaches of a diversity controller (#270, Fig.2) that enables or disables antenna receive diversity (ARD) of an order higher than a threshold (a degree of diversity of two, Paragraph 0024 and Fig.2) depending on a plurality of indicators (Paragraphs 0028 – 0029).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the receiver capable of antenna receive diversity (ARD) of an order higher than a threshold based on the change from the first physical operational status to the second physical operational status so as to improve wireless link reliability and increases data speeds. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have disabled antenna receive diversity in case the network is not experiencing a high load on the network resources.
Re claim 6, Klomsdorf, Han and Islam teach all the limitations of claim 2, as well as Klomsdorf teaches of wherein the first physical operational status corresponds to a closed mode where the first range comprises zero degrees (folded mode is zero degrees, Fig.3) and the second physical operational status corresponds to an open mode where the second range comprises one hundred and eighty degrees (open mode is 180 degrees, Fig.3), wherein the change is from the first physical operational status to the second physical operational status, and wherein to configure the operation mode of the set of antennas at the UE based on the change between the first physical operational status and the second physical operational status (Fig.4). Islam teaches of enabling antenna receive diversity (ARD) (spatial diversity, Paragraph 0030) of an order higher than a threshold (more than two antennas are required to perform spatial diversity, Paragraph 0030) based on the change from the first physical operational status to the second physical operational status (different positions: (i) fully closed; (ii) open 90°; and (iii) fully open may be used to enable spatial diversity, Paragraph 0030, #109, Fig.3A) (Paragraphs 0018 and 0042). However Klomsdorf, Han and Islam do not specifically teach of the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: disable antenna receive diversity (ARD) of an order higher than a threshold based on the change from the first physical operational status to the second physical operational status.
Ulipinar teaches of a diversity controller (#270, Fig.2) that enables or disables antenna receive diversity (ARD) of an order higher than a threshold (a degree of diversity of two, Paragraph 0024 and Fig.2) depending on a plurality of indicators (Paragraphs 0028 – 0029).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the receiver capable of antenna receive diversity (ARD) of an order higher than a threshold based on the change from the first physical operational status to the second physical operational status so as to improve wireless link reliability and increases data speeds. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have disabled antenna receive diversity in case the network is not experiencing a high load on the network resources.
Claims 12 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Klomsdorf, Han and Islam in view of Lee et al (US 2024/0196373).
Re claims 12 and 19, Klomsdorf, Han and Islam teach all the limitations of claims 1 and 13, as well as Islam teaches of wherein the blocking entity blocks at least one antenna of the set of antennas in the second physical operational status (Paragraphs 0018 and 0048, Figures 6A – 6B), and wherein to configure the operation mode of the set of antennas at the UE based on the change between the first physical operational status and the second physical operational status (antenna switch diversity, Paragraph 0018 and Figures 3 – 4 and 6), the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to: disable the at least one antenna (communication workload can be shifted to the third antenna, presuming that the first antenna is also blocked, Paragraph 0049) and enable antenna receive diversity (ARD) based on the change being from the first physical operational status to the second physical operational status (different positions: (i) fully closed; (ii) open 90°; and (iii) fully open may be used to enable spatial diversity, Paragraph 0030, #109. Fig.3A) (Paragraphs 0018 and 0042). However, Klomsdorf, Han and Islam do not specifically teach of enabling antenna receive diversity (ARD) of an order lower than a threshold.
Lee teaches of enabling antenna receive diversity (ARD) of an order lower than a threshold (4<NT<32, Paragraph 0035).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have enabled antenna receive diversity (ARD) without using the blocked antenna based on the change from the first physical operational status to the second physical operational status so as to improve wireless link reliability and increases data speeds. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have enabled antenna receive diversity (ARD) of an order lower than a threshold so as to reduce power consumption.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at (571) 272-3044. 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.
/ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
