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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 01/17/2025. Claims 1 – 13 are pending in this application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 6 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 6 and 10 each recite “Rx” without initially spelling out this abbreviation. Thus, “Rx” is open to interpretation and, therefore, renders the claims indefinite. For further examination, “Rx” is interpreted as “receiver”.
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.
Claims 1, 2 and 9 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110269502 (Clark) in view of US 20040253955 (Love).
Regarding claims 1 and 13, Clark teaches “A wireless communication device for switching operation frequency bands (shown in FIG 2 with corresponding description), comprising:
a first antenna (paragraph 0030: an antenna 18)…”
“…a controller, coupled to the first antenna (paragraph 0030: a processor 2)…” “…and configured to:
monitor a first frequency band through the first antenna…” “…to obtain a first measurement result (FIG 6 with corresponding description. Paragraph 0046: At block 602, a mobile communication device is operated in a first radio frequency band. Paragraph 0047: At block 604, a plurality of RSSI values are received. At block 606, the received RSSI values are compared to a threshold RSSI. At decision block 608, is determined whether the received RSSI values are less than a threshold RSSI.); and
switch a data channel of the first antenna from the first frequency band to a second frequency band different from the first frequency band according to the first measurement result (paragraph 0047: At decision block 608, is determined whether the received RSSI values are less than a threshold RSSI. If yes, at block 610, the mobile communication device is operated in the second radio frequency band. In one example, the first radio frequency band is an ISM band and the second radio frequency band is a DECT band, which are different frequency bands. Although paragraph 0046 teaches usage of a method when the mobile communication device is operated in a voice communication linked state, this is given only as an example. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize the same band switching method when performing data communication as well. Doing so would have expanded the usage of the method to other types of communication, including data, thus increasing reliability of communication).”
Clark does not disclose presence of “a second antenna” so that it is also used to monitor the first frequency band.
Love in FIG 1 with corresponding description teaches a mobile wireless communications device 100 comprising a first RF processor 132 and at least one other diversity RF processor branch 134, that may be selectably enabled and disabled for at least diversity reception. Each of the branches has its own associated antenna. Thus, in FIG 1, the antenna connected to the first RF processor 132 corresponds to “a first antenna” and the antenna connected to the diversity RF processor branch 134 corresponds to “a second antenna”. As further disclosed in paragraph 0023, in the process diagram 200 of FIG. 2, at block 210, the user equipment determines a channel quality indicator (CQI) with the diversity receive branch enabled when the RF receive processor branch 136 in FIG. 1 is enabled. At block 220, this channel quality indicator is compared with a threshold. At block 230, the diversity receive branch 136 in FIG. 1 is controlled, e.g., either enabled or disabled, based upon the comparison of the channel quality indicator with the threshold at block 220. Additional conditions for enabling or disabling the diversity receive branch based on the channel quality indicator are disclosed in paragraphs 0024 – 0025. Additionally or alternatively, as disclosed in paragraph 0027, diversity is controlled based upon whether or not data is received, for example, diversity is enabled when data is received and diversity is disabled otherwise.
In other words, Love teaches usage of two antennas for reception and that both antennas are used to determine channel quality indicator when the diversity receive branch is enabled.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to combine the diversity receiver structure of Love and its principles of operation with that one of Clark by implementing Clark’s wireless transceiver with primary and diversity branches with associated antennas. Doing so would have allowed to achieve enhanced data rates and/or reduced power consumption based on whether diversity branch is enabled or disabled (see, Love, paragraph 0017).
In the device of combined Clark and Love’s disclosures, the device would include a primary and a diversity branches, each with its own antenna. In operation, and as disclosed by Clark, the device would monitor RSSI (which is also a particular embodiment of a channel quality indicator), and based on that, transition from a first band to a second band. Additionally, within each of the bands, additional flexibility would be provided by selective enablement or disablement of the diversity branch that would allow to achieve better performance within each frequency band.
Regarding claim 2, Clark teaches “wherein the controller is configured to further: determine whether the first measurement result meets a first switching condition (paragraph 0047: At decision block 608, is determined whether the received RSSI values are less than a threshold RSSI…); and switch the data channel of the first antenna from the first frequency band to the second frequency band in response to determining that the first measurement result meets the first switching condition (paragraph 0047: …if yes at decision block 608, at block 610, the mobile communication device is operated in the second radio frequency band.).”
Regarding claim 9, Clark in combination with Love teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the controller is further configured to: use the first antenna to access the data channel and a first control channel to perform a data transmission and a first control signaling transmission (indeed, when the device of combined Clark and Love’s disclosures (having primary and diversity antennas) operates on the first band, at least the primary antenna would be utilized for data and control signaling transmissions on the “first control channel” belonging to the first band); and use the second antenna to access a second control channel to perform a second control signaling transmission (upon switching to the second band based on determined RSSI, as disclosed by Clark, and when the diversity branch is enabled, as disclosed by Love, the diversity antenna would be utilized, together with the primary antenna, for data and control signaling transmissions, however, on the “second control channel” belonging to the second band).”
Regarding claim 10, Clark teaches “wherein the first measurement result comprises at least one of the following: a Rx required sensitivity, a signal-to-noise ratio, and a received signal strength indicator (Paragraph 0047: At block 604, a plurality of RSSI (the received signal strength indication - see paragraph 0015) values are received. At block 606, the received RSSI values are compared to a threshold RSSI. At decision block 608, is determined whether the received RSSI values are less than a threshold RSSI).”
Regarding claim 11, Clark teaches “wherein the first frequency band comprises at least one of a 5 GHz frequency band and a 2.4 GHz frequency band (paragraph 0047: In one example, the first radio frequency band is an ISM band. Paragraph 0017: The ISM bands are defined by the ITU-R. The defined ISM bands include the 915 MHz, 2.45 GHz, and 5.8 GHz bands. Also paragraph 0039).”
Regarding claim 12, Clark does not teach “wherein the second frequency band comprises at least one of a legal license-free spectrum and a sub-1 GHz frequency band.” In Clark, as stated in paragraph 0047, in one example, the second radio frequency band is a DECT band.
However, usage of DECT is given only as an example. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize any other frequency band as the second band simply as design choice with predictable results, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Additionally, an example of “a sub-1 GHz frequency band” is given by Clark in paragraph 0017 as 915 MHz band of ISM.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to try utilizing such frequency band as ISM “sub-1 GHz frequency band” since, according to the Supreme Court, “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.”KSR, 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Claims 3 – 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110269502 (Clark) in view of US 20040253955 (Love) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 20240195365 (Lomen).
Regarding claim 3, Clark does not teach this limitation.
Lomen teaches in FIG 1 with corresponding description “further comprising: a frequency conversion circuit (comprising components 108 – 120 in FIG 1), wherein the controller (controller 128 in FIG 1) is coupled to the first antenna through the frequency conversion circuit (although antenna is not shown in FIG 1, paragraph 0023 states that the system 100 may function as a frequency upconverter system, e.g., where the frequency fo of the output signal 146 is higher than the frequency fi of the input signal 130. Therefore, presence of the antenna is implicit as receiving the output signal 146. Thus, controller 128 is “coupled to the [implicitly present] first antenna” at least through various control lines 150 shown in FIG 1), and the frequency conversion circuit comprises: a first switch, coupled to the controller (switch 108 coupled to the controller 128 through control line 150b); a second switch, coupled to the controller (switch 120 coupled to the controller 128 through control line 150e), and coupled to the first switch through one of a first path (switch 120 is directly coupled to switch 108 through the signal path 110) and a second path (switch 120 is indirectly coupled to switch 108 through the signal path 112); and a mixer, disposed on the second path (mixer 114 within the signal path 112), wherein the controller is configured to further: configure the first switch and the second switch to enable the second path and disable the first path (paragraphs 0029 – 0033: In a second state of operation, the switch 108 couples the input terminal 109c to the output terminal 109b, and transmits the amplified input signal 132 to the second signal path 112. The controller 112 [read 128] generates a control signal 150b, based on configuration data 127 received by the controller 128. The configuration data 127 specifies whether the frequency fi of the signal 130 is to be altered or not by the system 100. If the frequency fi of the signal 130 is to be not altered, the control signal 150b generated by the controller 128 causes the switch 108 to operate in the first state of operation, where the switch 108 couples the input terminal 109c to the output terminal 109a, and transmits the signal 132 to the first signal path 110 (e.g., such that the frequency fi of the signal 132 is not altered by the signal path 110). On the other hand, if the frequency fi of the signal 132 is to be altered by the system 100, the control signal 150b generated by the controller 128 causes the switch 108 to operate in the second state of operation).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Lomen internal structure of the frequency conversion device, in the system of Clark. Doing so would have merely been an obvious replacement of one explicitly disclosed internal structure of a multiband device with another, also known in the art, which would behave exactly as disclosed and with predictable results since the court stated in KSR, "when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50-51 (1966)).
With respect to enablement of Lomen’s second signal path 112 “in response to determining that the first measurement result meets the first switching condition”, the device of Clark performs switching from one frequency band to another when the received RSSI values become lower than a threshold, as disclosed in Clark’s FIG 6, blocks 608 and 610. On the other side, as stated in Lomen, paragraph 0032, the configuration data 127 specifies whether the frequency fi of the input signal 130 is to be altered or not by the system 100. If the frequency fi of the input signal 130 is to be not altered, the control signal 150b generated by the controller 128 causes the switch 108 to operate in the first state of operation, where the switch 108 couples the input terminal 109c to the output terminal 109a, and transmits the signal 132 to the first signal path 110 (e.g., such that the frequency fi of the signal 132 is not altered by the signal path 110). On the other hand, if the frequency fi of the signal 132 is to be altered by the system 100, the control signal 150b generated by the controller 128 causes the switch 108 to operate in the second state of operation.
In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that, in the device of combined Clark and Lomen’s disclosures, if initially the communication is performed using the first frequency band without converting the frequency of the input signal 130 (Lomen’s FIG 1), switching to a different frequency band would necessitate introduction of frequency conversion, so as to convert the frequency of the input signal 130 (which is within the first frequency band) into the frequency within the second frequency band. In the system of Clark, the band switching is performed “in response to determining that the first measurement result meets the first switching condition”. Therefore, in the device of combined Clark and Lomen’s disclosures, this switching from Lomen’s first signal path 110 to the second signal path 112 comprising the mixer to be able to convert the frequency of the input signal would also be performed “in response to determining that the first measurement result meets the first switching condition”, as the claim requires.
Regarding claim 4, Clark in combination with Lomen teach “wherein the frequency conversion circuit further comprises: a frequency synthesizer, coupled to the mixer (Lomen, paragraph 0037: The oscillator circuit 112 comprises a local oscillator (LO), or another appropriate type of oscillator circuit) and providing the mixer with an oscillation signal (Lomen, paragraph 0037: The oscillator circuit 112 generates the signal 138 at a frequency that is controlled by a control signal 150c generated by the controller 128 based on the configuration data 127.), wherein the mixer converts a data signal corresponding to the data channel from the first frequency band to the second frequency band according to the oscillation signal (Lomen, paragraph 0038: The mixer 114, such as a frequency mixer, receives the signals 132 (input signal within “the first frequency band”) and 138 (oscillation signal), and performs a frequency mixing of the two signals 132 and 128, to generate a modified input signal 140 (output signal within “the second frequency band”).).”
Regarding claim 5, Clark in combination with Lomen teach “wherein the frequency conversion circuit further comprises: a radio frequency front end circuit, wherein the mixer is coupled to the second switch through the radio frequency front end circuit, and the radio frequency front end circuit comprises at least one of the following: a switch, a power amplifier, a filter (Lomen, FIG 1: programmable filter circuit 116 so that mixer 114 “is coupled to the second switch through” the filter 116 being “the radio frequency front end circuit”) and a low-noise amplifier.”
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110269502 (Clark) in view of US 20040253955 (Love) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US 20240283568 (Davies).
Regarding claim 6, Clark does not teach “wherein the controller is further configured to: obtain a lookup table, wherein the lookup table comprises a mapping relationship between a data rate and a Rx required sensitivity; and query a required sensitivity corresponding to a minimum data rate from the lookup table; and configure the first switching condition according to the required sensitivity.”
While teaching in paragraph 0033 the memory storing predetermined threshold RSSI values (representing a form of “a lookup table”), Clark does not disclose how these threshold values were determined, thus prompting a person of ordinary skill in the art to look for additional references.
Davies teaches “obtain a lookup table, wherein the lookup table comprises a mapping relationship between a data rate and a Rx required sensitivity (the table in paragraph 0072).” Based on that, a reception sensitivity may be determined “corresponding to a minimum data rate from the lookup table.”
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to use the sensitivities given by the table in Davies’s paragraph 0072 as threshold RSSI values (or representations of the threshold RSSI values) in the system of Clark simply as design choice with predictable results, and to fill in where Clark is silent since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Thus, in the system of combined Clark and Davis’s disclosures, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to select the required threshold RSSI value based on the required data rate in Davies’s table as the switching condition to switch from one communication band to another communication band.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20110269502 (Clark) in view of US 20040253955 (Love) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20140362809 (Kwon).
Regarding claim 7, Clark does not teach “wherein the controller is further configured to: monitor the first frequency band through the second antenna to obtain a second measurement result in response to switching the data channel of the first antenna from the first frequency band to the second frequency band.”
As may be seen from Clark’s FIG 6, “in response to switching the data channel of the first antenna from the first frequency band to the second frequency band” represented by block 610, the process moves on to the block 604 in which plurality of RSSI values are collected which appear to be for the now operational second frequency band. In contrast, the claim requires monitoring the first frequency band.
In similar art, Kwon teaches a method and apparatus for transferring to a second communication band and returning to an original communication band according to a channel state in a multiband communication system (see abstract). As further disclosed in FIG 4 with corresponding description in paragraphs 0066 – 0069, initially, the devices communicate with each other using first, mmWAVE communication band (60 GHz). At some point the devices transition to the second, 2.4/5 GHz communication band (denoted as “4” in FIG 4). However, while communicating through the second communication band, the devices keep monitoring the 60 GHz band to determine a channel state, such as an RSSI, for the 60 GHz band. If the RSSI exceeds a particular threshold, the devices may decide to return to the 60 GHz band. Thus, while communicating through the second communication band, the devices “monitor the first frequency band … to obtain a second measurement result in response to switching the data channel of the first antenna from the first frequency band to the second frequency band.”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to implement disclosed by Kwon, after switching communication to the second communication band, monitoring of the first communication band, in the system of combined Clark and Love’s disclosures. Doing so would have allowed to switch back to the first communication band only if and when the channel state for the first communication band is better than a threshold, thus preventing unnecessary switching back and forth between the communication bands which could happen when the channel state for the first communication band is not good enough.
With respect to using specifically “the second antenna” for the monitoring of the first communication band, the device of combined Clark and Love’s disclosures would have a primary and a diversity antennas, as was explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. Since Kwon does not specifically disclose which antenna is to be used for the monitoring of the first communication band, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately understood that there may be only three options: 1) use primary antenna (“the first antenna”) for the monitoring; 2) use diversity antenna (“the second antenna”) for the monitoring; and 3) use both primary and diversity antennas. In options 2 and 3, the diversity antenna (“the second antenna”) is used for the monitoring purposes.
Therefore, since the number of options is small and well understood, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to try either of these options, including the options 2 and 3 with the expectation of success since, according to the Supreme Court, “a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. In that instance the fact that a combination was obvious to try might show that it was obvious under § 103.”KSR, 550 U.S. 82 USPQ2d at 1397.
Regarding claim 8, Clark in combination with Love and Kwon teaches “wherein the controller is further configured to: determine whether the second measurement result meets a second switching condition (Kwon, FIG 4 and paragraphs 0067 – 0069: measuring the channel state of the 60 GHz band and specifically such parameter as an RSSI. For example, if the RSSI exceeds a particular threshold, the devices may decide to return to the 60 GHz band.); and switch the data channel of the first antenna from the second frequency band back to the first frequency band in response to determining that the second measurement result meets the second switching condition (Kwon, FIG 4 and paragraphs 0067 – 0069: if the RSSI exceeds a particular threshold, the devices may decide to return to the 60 GHz band).”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights