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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 10, 11 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Liu et al. (US 20160211963 A1), hereinafter, Liu.
Regarding claim 1:
Liu discloses a wireless communication device (Fig. 1), comprising:
a first antenna (Fig. 1, receive antenna 102) (Paragraphs [0041], [0065]);
a second antenna (Fig. 1, receive antenna 103) (Paragraphs [0041], [0065]), wherein the first antenna, the second antenna and a disturbance source (Fig. 1, transmit antenna 104) have a fixed position relationship (Paragraphs [0065] and [0066]; interfering signals from transmit antenna are path length b1 and b2 away from the receive antennas 102 and 103 respectively; the lengths b1 and b2 satisfy the relative distance condition based on difference between the lengths b1 b2 and operating wavelength of the antenna; See Fig. 2, the relative position of the receive antennas (claimed first and second antennas) and the interfering transmit antenna (claimed disturbance source) is fixed, i.e. they have a fixed position relationship as claimed); and
a power combiner (Fig. 1, power combiner 108), coupled with the first antenna and the second antenna through a first signal path and a second signal path (Paragraphs [0041], [0042], [0048]), respectively, configured to receive a first noise and a second noise induced by the disturbance source through the first signal path and the second signal path, respectively, and configured to combine the first noise and the second noise (Paragraphs [0048], [0065], [0066]; interfering signals from transmit antenna 104 to receive antenna 102 is claimed first noise and interfering signals from transmit antenna 104 to receive antenna 103 is claimed second noise); wherein based on the fixed position relationship, the first noise and the second noise received by the power combiner have a target phase difference and a target amplitude ratio so that the first noise and the second noise form a destructive interference at the power combiner (Paragraph [0055] and [0064]-[0068]; interfering signals (claimed first noise and second noise ) are combined by power combiner 108 such that the phase difference corresponding to the interfering signals in each subset is 180o (claimed target phase difference) and subsets are chosen such that the amplitude in each subset is equal (i.e. claimed target amplitude ratio is 1:1) so that interfering signals cancel each other out (claimed destructive interference at the power combiner)).
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is rejected as being anticipated by Liu based on a rationale similar to the one used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claims 10 and 20:
Liu further discloses the wireless communication device and corresponding operating method, wherein the power combiner is configured to receive a first main signal and a second main signal induced by an external signal source through the first signal path and the second signal path, respectively, and configured to combine the first main signal and the second main signal, so that the first main signal and the second main signal form a constructive combination at the power combiner (Paragraphs [0044]-[0048]; claimed function is the inherent function of Liu’s receiver for receiving non-interference signals (claimed main signals); the combiner inherently constructively combines the signals in order to extract the signal that was intended for the 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 2, 3, 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu.
Regarding claims 2 and 12:
Liu discloses the device and corresponding operating method of claim 11, wherein the target phase difference is 180 degrees (Paragraph [0055]).
Although Liu does not explicitly disclose that the target phase difference is between -160 and -180 degrees or between 160 and 180 degrees, Liu’s disclose phase difference is within the claimed ranges. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have arrived at the claimed ranges by routine experimentation since in order to destructively combine the noise signals without completely canceling noise would allow for a small range of phase differences as claimed and still result in reducing noise and interference within acceptable limits.
Regarding claims 3 and 13:
Liu discloses the device and corresponding operating method of claim 11, wherein the target amplitude ratio is 1:1 (Paragraph [0055], equal amplitudes).
Although Liu does not explicitly disclose that the target amplitude ratio ranges from 1:0.8 to 1:1.2, Liu’s disclose amplitude ratio of 1:1 is within the claimed ranges. One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have arrived at the claimed ranges by routine experimentation since in order to destructively combine the noise signals without completely canceling noise would allow for a small variation in range of amplitude ratios as claimed and still result in reducing noise and interference within acceptable limits.
Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu in view of Werckele et al. (US 20090243931 A1), hereinafter, Werckele.
Regarding claims 9 and 19:
Liu discloses the wireless communication device and method as claimed in claims 1 and 11, but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the disturbance source is a digital transmission interface of the wireless communication device.
However, Weckerle discloses antennas for transmission of a signal having a digital interface for connecting antennas to the transmitter (Paragraph [0015]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that Liu’s transmit antenna disturbance source is digital transmission interface of the wireless communication device as disclosed by Weckerle, thereby arriving at claimed invention. It would have been obvious so as to properly relay and connect the antennas to the transmitter components.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-8, 14-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINEETA S PANWALKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5pm.
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, David C. Payne can be reached at 571-272-3024. 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.
/VINEETA S PANWALKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights