DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application as originally filed on 04/09/2025.
Status of the Claim:
Claims 1-22 were pending.
Claims 6 and 17 are cancelled.
Claims 1-5, 7-16, 18-22 are pending. The detail office action to the pending claims is as shown below.
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 Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s request for entry of the Preliminary Amendment filed 04/09/2025, prior to the examination on the merits. By this amendment, the Original Specification, Abstract of the Disclosure and the Claim have been amended. The Applicant’s Remarks Made in an Amendment and filed along with the Preliminary Amendment informs “claims 1-5, 7-16, and 18-22 are presented for examination. Claims 1, 3-5, 7-10, 12- 16, and 18-22 have been amended to place the claims in better form under U.S. patent practice. Claims 6 and 17 have been cancelled, without prejudice and without disclaimer of subject matter. Applicant notes that the amendments are based on the originally filed PCT claims. The Specification has been amended to include the cross-reference to related applications information. The Abstract has been amended to place the Abstract in better form. No new matter has been added.”
Claim Objections
The following claims are objected to because:
Regarding currently amended claims 1-5, 7-16, 18-22, each of these claims are objected to for capitalizing the letter “C” in the middle of their sentences. MPEP 608.01(m) Form of Claims states: “Each claim begins with a capital letter and ends with a period.” In other words, the only required capitalization in a claim is the first word of the claim. Appropriate corrections required.
Regarding currently amended claims 1, 7-9, 12-16,18-22, each of these claims use double commas, instead of double parenthesis, to enclose abbreviations such as WD, VSWR. To minimize possible confusions when reading and/or reduce difficulties when printing, it is suggested placing these acronyms in double parentheses “( )”, at least when they first appear in claim sets. Appropriate corrections required.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1-5, 7-16, 18-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US2013/0069737 to See et al. (“See”) in view of CN114430281 to Xiao et al. (“Xiao”) (The remarks and/or references placed in the parentheses apply to the prior art)
RE claims 1 and 12, See discloses a method in a wireless device, WD, (1000, 1100) and a wireless device, WD, (100, 200, 300) configured with impedance matching circuitry (150, 250, 336, 362), and processing circuitry (e.g. 110, 210, 310) in communication with the impedance matching circuitry (e.g. Figs. 1-3 of See) and configured to control the impedance matching circuitry (e.g. para [0024] of See) to compensate for a difference between an output impedance of a power amplifier and an input impedance of an antenna element (e.g. See, Fig. 1 and paras [0024], [0031]: … matches impedances of the circuits coupled to the input and output of the impedance matching circuit. For example, the impedance matching circuit may perform impedance matching between an input impedance of an antenna and an output impedance of an amplifier), the method comprising: determining WD contextual information (e.g. Fig. 1, para [0021] of See: the control unit receives the outputs of contextual sensors 176), the WD contextual information including at least one of environmental information and hardware operating conditions of the WD (e.g. paras [0096] of See: the contextual information may be any information related to the user of the wireless device and its environments/surroundings. The contextual information may be obtained via various sensors such as a proximity sensor, an accelerometer, an infrared sensor, a temperature sensor, etc.); determining at least one prediction of at least one of the antenna element input impedance, the power amplifier output impedance and a set of at least one control parameter of the impedance matching circuitry based at least in part on the WD contextual information (e.g. paras [0055], [0097] of See: the impedance matching circuit may be Pre-characterized (i.e. predicted), based on measurements, using computer simulations (models), for a plurality of circuit settings of specific configurations; specific control settings for variable elements in the impedance matching circuit; and a performance characterization. The settings and performance characterizations for different circuit settings may be stored in a look-up table (LUT) and used to tune the impedance matching circuit. The impedance matching circuit may be tuned based on any set of inputs including the measurements, contextual information, selected operating frequency, selected mode etc. The settings and measurements may be used to select circuit settings for the impedance matching circuit. as shown in Fig. 6, the iterative search for the circuit setting with the best performance (e.g., the best delivered power, return loss, PA current, etc.) may be facilitated by the set of pre-characterized circuit settings stored in a look up table) ; and performing an adjustment to the impedance matching circuitry based at least in part on the at least one prediction (e.g. Fig. 1, paras [0021], [0067], [0096] of See: the adaptive impedance matching circuit in the wireless device is tuned/adjusted based on the contextual information and measurements for one or more parameters such as delivered power, return loss, power amplifier output, and antenna/load impedance, etc. The measurements are used to tune/adjust the impedance matching circuit such that good performance for data transmission and reception via antennas of the wireless device.)
The subject matter of claims 1 and 12 differ from See in that See does not expressly recite the term “prediction”, as recited by the claims. However, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, See’s disclosure of performing pre-characterization (i.e. prediction) of the input impedance, power amplifier output impedance, and the set of control parameters of the impedance matching circuits, as taught by see (e.g. paras [0055], [0097] ) can be construed as See clearly teaches or suggests said claim term. Also, the term ‘prediction” or determining at least one prediction of an input impedance, power amplifier output impedance, and a set of control parameters of an impedance matching circuit is rather firmly established in a field related to adaptive antenna matching tuning in wireless communications. For example, Xiao’s invention also related to the field of antenna technology, particularly to an impedance matching method, device, electronic device, and readable storage medium (e.g. page 2 of Xiao), teaches or fairly suggests obtaining at least one prediction of an antenna element impedance based at least in part on the operating frequency band, reflection coefficient information, and current parameters of the impedance matching network (e.g. page 4 of Xiao). Hence the prior art includes each element/feature as claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. Thus, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to modify the method/system disclosed by See with the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art or with Xiao’s teaching or suggestion to obtain prediction for an input impedance which represent the antenna element. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art, such as an individual working in a field related to adaptive antenna matching tuning in wireless communications, could have combined the features/elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each feature/method step merely performs the same function as it does separately, with each feature/method step retaining its advantageous function and yield the predictable result/s. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claims 1 and 12.
RE claims 2 and 13, See discloses the method and WD of Claims 1 and 12, wherein the at least one prediction is obtained from a neural network trained to minimize a loss function, the loss function based at least in part on a difference between an expected value and a resultant value (e.g. See, Para [0007]: the techniques for tuning/adjusting an impedance matching circuit described herein may be used for wireless devices of various types such as smart phones, tablets, PDAs, laptop computers, smart books, netbooks, consumer electronic devices, etc.; and See (e.g. Fig. 1, paras [0021], [0067], [0096]) the adaptive impedance matching circuit in the wireless device is tuned/adjusted based on the contextual information and measurements for one or more parameters such as return loss and mismatch loss, etc.; and See (e.g. Paras [0077]-[0085]; the return loss and mismatch loss can be calculated by finding the reflection coefficient based on the difference between the incident power and reflected power (see Eq. 6, 7)).
The subject matter of claims 2 and 13 differ from See in that See does not expressly disclose wherein the prediction is obtained from a neural network, as recited. However, Xiao, teaches or suggests, in the same technical field, the obtaining prediction values from a trained neural network configured to minimizer a loss fiction. For example, Xiao (e.g. Page 6) describes that the impedance matching model is trained using sample data as input data and output data with the second target parameters as the target to thereby obtain a neural network model. This makes the first target parameter and conduction gain prediction values obtained by the impedance matching model more accurate. And Xiao (e.g. page 16) discusses when the impedance of the RF antenna circuit does not match that of the RF front, part of the RF power transmitted from the front end to the RF antenna circuit is reflected back, causing radiated power loss, known as a Return Loss (RL). Accordingly, the more the impedance of the RF antenna circuit matches that of the RF front-end, the less return loss, the higher the antenna's efficiency, the greater the conduction gain, and the better the antenna's other performance aspects Hence the prior art includes each element/feature as claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. Thus, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to modify the method/system disclosed by See with Xiao’s teaching or suggestion to obtain prediction for an input impedance which represent the antenna element. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art, such as an individual working in a field related to adaptive antenna matching tuning in wireless communications, could have combined the features/elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each feature/method step merely performs the same function as it does separately, with each feature/method step retaining its advantageous function and yield the predictable result/s. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claims 2 and 13.
RE claims 3 and 14, See discloses the method and WD of Claims 2 and 13, wherein determining the at least one prediction includes determining a prediction expected to reduce an amount of power reflected backward from an input of the antenna element toward an output of the power amplifier (e.g. See, Para [0007]: the techniques for tuning/adjusting an impedance matching circuit described herein may be used for wireless devices of various types such as smart phones, tablets, PDAs, laptop computers, smart books, netbooks, consumer electronic devices, etc.; and See (e.g. Fig. 1, paras [0021], [0067], [0096]) the adaptive impedance matching circuit in the wireless device is tuned/adjusted based on the contextual information and measurements for one or more parameters such as return loss and mismatch loss, etc.; and See (e.g. Paras [0077]-[0085]; the return loss and mismatch loss can be calculated by finding the reflection coefficient based on the difference between the incident power and reflected power (see Eq. 6, 7)).
The subject matter of claims 3 and 14 differ from See in that See does not expressly disclose wherein the prediction is obtained from a neural network, as recited. However, Xiao, teaches or suggests, in the same technical field, the obtaining prediction values from a trained neural network configured to minimizer a loss fiction. For example, Xiao (e.g. Page 6) describes that the impedance matching model is trained using sample data as input data and output data with the second target parameters as the target to thereby obtain a neural network model. This makes the first target parameter and conduction gain prediction values obtained by the impedance matching model more accurate. And Xiao (e.g. page 16) discusses when the impedance of the RF antenna circuit does not match that of the RF front, part of the RF power transmitted from the front end to the RF antenna circuit is reflected back, causing radiated power loss, known as a Return Loss (RL). Accordingly, the more the impedance of the RF antenna circuit matches that of the RF front-end, the less return loss, the higher the antenna's efficiency, the greater the conduction gain, and the better the antenna's other performance aspects Hence the prior art includes each element/feature as claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. Thus, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to modify the method/system disclosed by See with Xiao’s teaching or suggestion to obtain prediction for an input impedance which represent the antenna element. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art, such as an individual working in a field related to adaptive antenna matching tuning in wireless communications, could have combined the features/elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each feature/method step merely performs the same function as it does separately, with each feature/method step retaining its advantageous function and yield the predictable result/s. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claims 3 and 14.
RE claims 4 and 15, See discloses the method and WD of Claims 2 and 13, wherein determining the at least one prediction includes determining a prediction expected to increase an amount of power transferred by the impedance matching circuit from an output of the power amplifier to an input of the antenna element, as recited (e.g. paras [0055], [0097] of See: the impedance matching circuit may be determined by Pre-characterizing (i.e. predicting), based on measurements, using computer simulations (models), for a plurality of circuit settings of specific configurations; specific control settings for variable elements in the impedance matching circuit; and a performance characterization. The settings and performance characterizations for different circuit settings may be determined and used to tune the impedance matching circuit. The impedance matching circuit may be tuned based on any set of inputs including the measurements, contextual information, selected operating frequency, selected mode etc. The settings and measurements may be used to select circuit settings for the impedance matching circuit; and See (e.g. Fig. 1, paras [0021], [0067], [0096]) describes the adaptive impedance matching circuit in the wireless device is tuned/adjusted based on the contextual information and measurements for one or more parameters such as delivered power, return loss, power amplifier output, and antenna/load impedance, etc. The measurements are used to tune/adjust the impedance matching circuit such that good performance for data transmission and reception via antennas of the wireless device.)
RE claims 5 and 16, See discloses the method and WD of Claims 2 and 13, wherein determining the at least one prediction includes determining a prediction expected to increase a gain of the power amplifier or to increase a power efficiency of the power amplifier (e.g. See, Figs, 10-11, paras [0088]-[0089], [0094]-[0097]: for example, the relationship between bias voltage for a gain transistor in a power amplifier and bias current for the power amplifier may be characterized and a bias voltage may be applied to the gain transistor, and the bias current for the power amplifier may be determined based on the applied bias voltage and thereby to increase a power efficiency of the power amplifier.)
RE claims 7 and 18, See discloses the method and WD of Claims 1 and 12, wherein the environmental information includes sensor information from embedded sensors configured to detect a relative position of the WD (e.g. See, para [0096]: the impedance matching circuit in the wireless device may be tuned based on contextual information for the wireless device. The contextual information may be any information related to the user of the wireless device or its environment/surrounding. The contextual information may be obtained via various embedded sensors such as a proximity sensor, an accelerometer, an infrared sensor, etc.).
RE claims 8 and 19, See discloses the method and WD of Claims 7 and 18, wherein the relative position of the WD includes at least one of a position of fingers in proximity to the WD (22), a position of the WD (22) with respect to a user's head, and a position of the WD (22) relative to a material object (e.g. See, para [0063]: the wireless device is typically held in a user's hand and may be placed next to the user's ear and head. The antenna impedance may change due to proximity of human body ( e.g., hand, ear, etc.) on the wireless device.)
RE claims 9 and 20, See discloses the method and WD of Claims 1 and 12, wherein the hardware operating conditions of the WD include at least one of a power amplifier temperature, backoff level, biasing level and impedances (e.g. See, para [0096]: the impedance matching circuit in the wireless device may be tuned based on contextual information, wherein the contextual information may be obtained via various sensors the wireless device such as a temperature sensor etc.).
RE claims 10 and 21, See discloses the method and WD of Claims 1 and 12, wherein the at least one control parameter is based at least in part on a whether an impedance mismatch between the output impedance of the power amplifier and an input impedance of the antenna element exceeds a threshold (e.g. See, para [0099]: the control unit may select one of the plurality of settings of the impedance matching circuit based on the information for the plurality of settings and measurements for the impedance matching circuit; and para [0103]-[0105]: in an exemplary design, the load circuit may comprise an antenna, and the impedance matching circuit may perform impedance matching for the antenna, and, the load circuit may comprise a power amplifier, and the impedance matching circuit may perform output impedance matching for the power amplifier.)
RE claims 11 and 22, See discloses the method and WD of Claims 10 and 21, wherein the impedance mismatch is determined based at least in part on at least one of an impedance difference and a voltage standing wave ratio, VSWR (e.g. See, paras [0086]-[0087]: Fig. 9 shows an exemplary design of the computation unit (174) that can measure the delivered power and/or other parameters via impedance matching circuit 150. The Antenna/load impedance may be determined based on voltage measurements from the sensors. For example, several voltage measurements may be used to determine antenna impedance, delivered power, and incident power. Other parameters such as return loss, mismatch loss, reflected power, etc., may be computed from the parameters obtained via measurements.)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are (See the attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)). These prior arts are considered pertinent because they relate generally to electronic circuits, and in particular implementations, to relate to a reconfigurable intelligent surfaces (RISs).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERHANU TADESE whose telephone number is (571)272-2478. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday (9 - 5 PM EST).
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, Chieh M. Fan can be reached on 571.272.3042. 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.
/BERHANU TADESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
