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 § 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.
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.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenbroek et al. US Patent Application Publication 2016/0126619 and Judkins et al. US Patent Application Publication 2019/0027821.
Regarding Claim 1, Tenbroek et al. teaches a wireless electronic device (a wireless communication unit Par. 0015 Figs. 4, 5), comprising:
a first antenna (402 Fig. 4 / 502 Fig. 5 Par. 0043, 0057) operating in a first frequency band (Par. 0052, 0057);
an antenna matching network for the first antenna (436 including 426, 430 Figs. 4, 5 Par. 0048, 0058), the antenna matching network including:
at least one aperture tuner (426 Figs. 4, 5 Par. 0043, 0058) configured to shift a frequency response of the first antenna (“a first antenna tuning procedure controls/sets one or more adjustable component(s) in aperture tuner 426 to compensate for a frequency resonance shift determined”); and
at least one impedance tuner (430 Figs. 4, 5 Par. 0043, 0058) configured to adjust an amount of radiated power for the first antenna in response to a change in at least one operating characteristic of the first antenna (Par. 0060 and “The antenna impedance tuning is arranged to optimize power transfer to/from the transmission line 516, e.g. in a form of a guided wave, from/to the antenna element (s) by tuning the impedance matching module 430” Par. 0061),
wherein a location of at least one of the aperture tuner or the impedance tuner is selected on the first antenna based on the at least one operating characteristic of the first antenna (Par. 0048-0050), and at least a second antenna operating in a second frequency band different from the first frequency band (second antenna within antenna array Par. 0046, 0056, different frequencies seen in Fig. 3).
Tenbroek et al. is silent on wherein the antenna matching network is configured to reduce interference.
However, Judkins et al. teaches “if care is not taken, the radio-frequency electromagnetic fields generated by antenna 40 in the vicinity of tuning circuits 102 may interfere with the control and operation of tuning circuits 102, thereby deteriorating the wireless performance of antenna 40” (Par. 0061). Additionally, Judkins et al. teaches wherein a second antenna (antennas in regions 20, 22 / 40L, 40U Figs. 1, 6 Par. 0059, 0060, 0084, 0088).
In this particular case, configuring the matching network to reduce interference between antennas is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Judkins et al. in order to obtain optimal wireless performance of the antennas.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to configure the antenna matching network of Tenbroek et al. to reduce interference with at least a second antenna operating in a second frequency band different from the first frequency band based on the teachings of Judkins et al. as a result effect in order to obtain optimal wireless performance of the antennas.
Regarding Claim 2, Tenbroek et al. as modified teaches wherein the first antenna is a low band antenna configured for wireless communication in a frequency range of 0.6-1.0 GHz (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 3, Tenbroek et al. as modified teaches wherein the at least one aperture tuner comprises a switch that is terminated with an inductor (switched inductor / 526 DTC Fig. 5 Par. 0059, 0063).
Regarding Claim 4, Tenbroek et al. as modified teaches wherein the inductor is electrically connected to a location on the first antenna that allows the first antenna to operate at least a defined minimum level of radiated power (implied from tuner Par. 0063, 0072).
Regarding Claim 5, Tenbroek et al. as modified teaches wherein the aperture tuner is positioned based at least on a distribution of a voltage along the first antenna (Fig. 5 Par. 0059).
Regarding Claim 6, Tenbroek et al. as modified teaches wherein the aperture tuner comprises a switch having at least one of an off-capacitance or an on-resistance that is below a set threshold value (Par. 0068).
Regarding Claim 7, Tenbroek et al. as modified teaches wherein the at least one of the off-capacitance or the on-resistance of the switch is configured to reduce at least one of a signal loss or an interference corresponding to the first antenna (mismatch loss Par. 0068).
Regarding Claim 8, Tenbroek et al. as modified teaches wherein the impedance tuner is located at an antenna feed (Figs. 4, 5).
Regarding Claim 9, Tenbroek et al. as modified teaches wherein the antenna matching network is configured to switch between a plurality of matching topologies in response to a condition or a signal (Par. 0062, 0063).
Regarding Claim 10, Tenbroek et al. as modified teaches wherein the antenna matching network further comprises a resonance blocker or a shunt switch for one or more inactive inductors (Par. 0063).
Regarding Claim 11, Tenbroek et al. as modified teaches wherein a first resonance of the antenna matching network occurs in an open state with an open circuit tuner load (Par. 0010, 0012).
Regarding Claims 12-15, the claims merely recite a method step of providing/forming the device which is immaterial to the patentability of the device itself. Since Tenbroek et al. and Judkins et al. disclose all of the structure limitations of the device, claims 12-15 are deemed unpatentable.
Regarding Claim 16, Tenbroek et al. teaches a(n) wearable electronic device, comprising:
a first antenna operating in a first frequency band;
an antenna matching network for the first antenna, the antenna matching network including:
at least one aperture tuner configured to shift a frequency response of the first antenna; and
at least one impedance tuner configured to adjust an amount of radiated power for the first antenna in response to a change in at least one operating characteristic of the first antenna,
wherein a location of at least one of the aperture tuner or the impedance tuner is selected on the first antenna based on the at least one operating characteristic of the first antenna, and at least a second antenna operating in a second frequency band different from the first frequency band.
Tenbroek et al. is silent on a wearable electronic device, wherein the antenna matching network is configured to reduce interference.
However, Judkins et al. teaches a wearable electronic device (“wristwatch device, a pendant device, a headphone or earpiece device, a virtual or augmented reality headset device, a device embedded in eyeglasses or other equipment worn on a user's head, or other wearable” Par. 0020); and “if care is not taken, the radio-frequency electromagnetic fields generated by antenna 40 in the vicinity of tuning circuits 102 may interfere with the control and operation of tuning circuits 102, thereby deteriorating the wireless performance of antenna 40” (Par. 0061). Additionally, Judkins et al. teaches wherein a second antenna (antennas in regions 20, 22 / 40L, 40U Figs. 1, 6 Par. 0059, 0060, 0084, 0088).
In this particular case, providing the electronic device as wearable is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Judkins et al. (Par. 0020), and configuring the matching network to reduce interference between antennas is common and well known in the antenna art as evident by Judkins et al. in order to obtain optimal wireless performance of the antennas.
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to provide the electronic device of Tenbroek et al. as wearable, and to configure the antenna matching network of Tenbroek et al. to reduce interference with at least a second antenna operating in a second frequency band different from the first frequency band based on the teachings of Judkins et al. as a result effect in order to obtain optimal wireless performance of the antennas in a wearable electronic device having wireless communications.
Regarding Claim 17, Tenbroek et al. as modified teaches wherein the first antenna is a low band antenna configured for wireless communication in a frequency range of 0.6-1.0 GHz (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 18, Tenbroek et al. as modified teaches wherein the at least one aperture tuner comprises a switch that is terminated with an inductor (switched inductor / 526 DTC Fig. 5 Par. 0059, 0063).
Regarding Claim 19, Tenbroek et al. as modified teaches wherein the inductor is electrically connected to a location on the first antenna that allows the first antenna to operate at least a defined minimum level of radiated power (implied from tuner Par. 0063, 0072).
Regarding Claim 20, Tenbroek et al. as modified teaches wherein the aperture tuner is positioned based at least on a distribution of a voltage along the first antenna (Fig. 5 Par. 0059).
Conclusion
The cited art in PTO-892 was found during the examiner's search, but was not relied upon for this office action. However it is still considered pertinent to the applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M BOUIZZA whose telephone number is (571)272-6124. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5pm, 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, Dimary Lopez can be reached at (571) 270-7893. 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.
/MICHAEL M BOUIZZA/Examiner, Art Unit 2845
Prosecution Insights