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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 15 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because Applicants have claimed a computer readable medium which could reasonably comprise a transitory propagating signal per se. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is obliged to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification during proceedings before the USPTO. See In re Zietz, 893 F.2d 319 (Fed. Cir. 1989).The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium typically covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent. See MPEP 2111.01. Here, Applicant has claimed a computer readable medium, and the specification is silent on whether this medium is explicitly non-transitory medium. Therefore, given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim, the recited computer readable medium could be interpreted as a transitory propagating signal per se. As such, the claim must be rejected under 35 US.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
In order to overcome this rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101, a claim drawn to such a computer readable medium that covers both transitory and non-transitory embodiments may be amended to narrow the claim to cover only statutory embodiments by adding the limitation "non-transitory" to the claim. Cf Animals - Patentability, 1077 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 24 (April 21, 1987) (suggesting that applicants add the limitation "non-human" to a claim covering a multicellular organism to avoid a rejection under 35 US.C. § 101). Such an amendment would typically not raise the issue of new matter, even when the specification is silent because the broadest reasonable interpretation relies on the ordinary and customary meaning that includes signals per se.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 7 – 9, 12, 13, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumar et al (US 2018/0309472) in view of Jang et al (US 2021/0105039) and Hayel et al (US 2003/0104799).
Regarding claim 1, Kumar et al teach an electronic device (see figure 3) comprising: memory storing instructions (see figure 2, 282) ; a radio-frequency, RF, circuit (see figure 2, 254); and a communication processor operatively connected to the memory and the RF circuit (see 270/280/288), wherein the RF circuit includes: a first voltage-controlled oscillator, VCO (see figure 3, component 330, paragraphs 0034 “frequency synthesizer with VCO”); a second voltage-controlled oscillator, VCO (see figure 3, component 318, paragraphs 0034 “frequency synthesizer with VCO”); and a signal detection block electrically connected to the first VCO and configured to detect a signal output from the first VCO (see figure 2 and 3). Kumar et al further disclose changing the frequency of at least one of them in a way that they are more far away each other, thereby reducing the coupling among them (passing from TDD to FDD paragraph 0038).
Kumar does not expressly disclose that to change the operating frequency of the second VCO based on identifying that a signal output from the first VCO is an abnormal signal. However, in analogous art, Jang et al disclose
Jang et al disclose detecting a signal may be abnormal when it is under a reference value (see paragraph 0114, 0115).
Hayel et al changing the frequency of the VCO based on the detected signal strength compared to a reference threshold (see figure 2 and 5 and paragraph 0030, and 0035).
Therefore it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art at the time in the invention was made to change an operating frequency of the second VCO based on identifying that a signal output from the first VCO is an abnormal signal when the strength of the signal output from the first VCO as detected by the signal detection block is less than a reference value. The motivation or suggestion to do so is to reduce the VCO coupling in the RF circuit.
Regarding claim 7, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Kumar et al in view of Jang and Hayel et al further teach wherein the RF circuit further comprises a reception circuit and the instructions, when executed by the communication processor, cause the electronic device to: control at least one frequency divider of a PLL of the second VCO to change a reference clock of the second VCO based on identifying that the detected signal is abnormal (see Hayel et al, figure 2 and 5 and paragraph 0030, and 0035); and control the RF circuit to change an operating frequency of the second VCO when identifying that a strength of a signal received through the reception circuit is less than a reference value (see Hayel et al, figure 2 and 5 and paragraph 0030, and 0035 and Jang et al see paragraph 0114, 0115).
Regarding claim 8, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Kumar et al in view of Jang and Hayel et al further teach wherein the RF circuit further comprises a reception circuit and the instructions, when executed by the communication processor, cause the electronic device to: control the RF circuit to change the operating frequency of the second VCO based on identifying that a signal-to-interference plus-noise ratio, SINR, of the signal received through the reception circuit is less than a reference value (see Hayel et al, figure 2 and 5 and paragraph 0030, and 0035 and Jang et al see paragraph 0114, 0115 “the parameter value received from the digital signal processing module 812 satisfies a set condition, the power control module 811 may identify that the first signal is abnormal”).
Regarding claim 9, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Kumar et al in view of Jang and Hayel et al further teach wherein the RF circuit further comprises a reception circuit and the instructions, when executed by the communication processor, cause the electronic device to control the RF circuit to: change the operating frequency of the second VCO based on identifying that a reference signal received power, RSRP, of the signal received through the reception circuit is a reference value or more (see Hayel et al, figure 2 and 5 and paragraph 0030, and 0035).
Regarding claim 12, the claimed method including the features corresponds to subject matter mentioned above in the rejection of claim 1 is applicable hereto.
Regarding claim 13, which inherits the limitations of claim 12, the claimed method including the subject matter mentioned above in the rejection of claim 7 is applicable hereto.
Regarding claim 15, the claimed computer readable medium including the features corresponds to subject matter mentioned above in the rejection of claim 1 is applicable hereto.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2 – 6, 10, 11, and 14 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 JAISON JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)272-6041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4.
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.
JAISON . JOSEPH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2633
/JAISON JOSEPH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights