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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 09/09/2025.
Claims 1-20 stand rejected and pending in this Office Action. Claims 1 and 9 are independent.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed 09/09/2025 are compliant with 37 CFR 1.97(c) and therein have been considered. Its corresponding PTO-1449s have been electronically signed as attached.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claims 9-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
As per claim 9, the claim recites an antenna control having a tuner codeword database and tuner sets coupled to the control. The database and the sets seem to be software modules or data structures and how a module or data structure is coupled to a hardware component, the control, of a device may raise issue of enablement.
The device claim further recites steps as components. Without further configuration with the steps for enabling the steps to be executable by a processing capable unit, merely comprising the steps as components to a device also seems to be possessing an enablement issue.
As per claims 10-16, the claims depend upon claim 9 and inherit the deficiency of not complying with the enablement requirement and without curing the deficiency. Consequently, claims 2-9 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected claim 9.
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 therefore, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claims 1, and 9, each recites, similarly and respectively,
a tuner codeword database construction method comprising [below steps]; and
a mobile device comprising: an antenna control and a tuner codeword database and tuner sets coupled to the control, and steps:
wherein the tuner codeword database is established by:
pre-processing a plurality of tuner codewords based on a user-defined weighting;
performing tuner codeword selection on a plurality of tuner characteristic data based on the user-defined weighting and a filtering range to generate a target tuner codeword among the plurality of tuner codewords; and
storing the target tuner codeword in a tuner codeword database, the tuner codeword database storing a plurality of stored tuner codewords for controlling at least one tuner of a user mobile device.
a). In analyzing under step 2A Prong One, Does the claim recite an abstract idea law of nature or natural phenomenon? Yes.
Claims 1 and 9 similarly recite below three simplified limitations (or “elements” hereafter):
pre-processing codewords;
performing tuner codeword selection on tuner characteristic data; and
storing the tuner codeword in a database.
As claim texts drafted by a set of very minimal three limitations (or elements) of each of the two claim categories, pre-processing codewords; performing tuner codeword selection; and storing the tuner codeword, are merely a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers mental processes – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, including:
“pre-processing a plurality of tuner codewords based on a user-defined weighting”, is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of observation and evaluation performed in human mind. The limitation also recites an arithmetic calculation to generate weighting, which is a "mathematical calculation" and so falls into the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas.
In the described activity above, for example, an inventory agent balancing counts of merchandize items based on receiving and/or consuming listing of the items, a similar activity that may or may not need the help of using paper and pencil for recording.
“performing tuner codeword selection on a plurality of tuner characteristic data based on the user-defined weighting and a filtering range to generate a target tuner codeword among the plurality of tuner codewords” is clearly an abstract idea of concepts of evaluation, judgment and opinion.
The limitation recites selection based on weighting which is mathematical calculations which fall within the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas.
In the human routines of the above similar operation step as example of inventory balancing and controlling on which the agent selects merchandise items based on listing of receiving and/or consuming listing and filtering out items based on level of inventory.
“storing the target tuner codeword in a tuner codeword database, the tuner codeword database storing a plurality of stored tuner codewords for controlling at least one tuner of a user mobile device” is clearly some concepts of observation and evaluation under the grouping of abstract ideas. As the above example of human routine activities of inventory balancing, the result of receiving and/or consuming merchandize items is updated on records on human brain or paper.
With respect to the above process of very limited number of operations, there isn’t any qualifying or refining condition(s) to the limitations as included and analyzed in the above descriptions that provides nothing that precludes the steps from practically being conceptually performed in the mind by observation, evaluation, judgement and opinion or from being grouped as mental processes, nor precluding the steps from mathematical calculations in the group of mathematical concepts, belonging to the Groupings of Abstract Ideas.
With respect to all limitations as recited, all can be analogously interpreted as inventory balancing, the limitations clearly belong to a group of abstract ideas as mental process as concepts that can be performed in the human mind and belong to mathematical calculations as mathematical concepts, and as whole, a group of abstract ideas.
As such, the set of limitations are clearly an abstract idea of mental processes of observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement that can be performed in human mind optionally with help of paper and pencil, also are clearly mathematical calculations of mathematical concepts.
The claim limitations, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the steps in the mind but for the recitation of generic hardware components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human” and also fall within mathematical calculations in the group of mathematical concepts to be an abstract idea, as the Examiner utilized an example of inventory balancing as a similar activity.
Therefore, it is the steps that can be performed mentally, or which are the equivalent of human mental work, or mathematical calculations in the group of mathematical concepts are unpatentable abstract ideas that the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ are open to all.
Accordingly, claims 1 and 9 recite an abstract idea.
b) In analyzing under step 2A Prong Two, Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim only recites additional element – “an antenna control”. The additional component is generic even being recited as additional limitation, however, does not preclude claims 1 and 9 from reciting an abstract idea. For instance, as the above detailed analysis on the three minimal limitations as abstract ideas that can be performed mentally in mind by human, without reciting any “additional element” to integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
The processes of receiving necessities for performing an action and providing indication of completed such that it amounts no more than mere instructions to apply the exception even if using a generic computer components, processing unit(s), memory and computer readable medium for the processes. That is, the limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp). Accordingly, even considering all the elements as additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. As such, the claims are directed at abstract ideas.
c) In analyzing under step 2B, does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO
Claims 1 and 9 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, there are simply no additional elements adding to the already analyzed very few minimal steps of performing some actions. The action steps represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry and are specified at a high level of generality, and in the context of the limitations reciting performing action that can be practically performed in the human mind and may be considered to fall within the mental process and mathematical concepts groupings.
As such, the limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp). The claims are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 include all the limitations of claims 1 and 9, respectively. Therefore, claims 2-8 and 10-16 recite the same abstract idea of concepts of in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement practically being performed in the mind or mathematical calculations in the group of mathematical concepts and the ana lysis must therefore proceed to Step 2A Prong Two.
Accordingly, dependent claims 2-8 and 10-16 recite no additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as defined in independent claims 1 and 9, respectively.
In particular,
Claims 2 and 10 similarly recite the limitation “wherein a plurality of tuner characteristic data, generated from the plurality of mobile device configuration parameters, include receiving power, transmitting power and Voltage standing wave ratio (VSWR)”.
The claim limitation reciting receiving and transmitting, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the steps in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” (thinking) that “can be performed in the human mind, or by a human” and the ratio as recited is within mathematical calculations in the group of mathematical concepts to be an abstract ideas.
Further, the recited “receiving” and “transmitting” are mere data gathering and outputting recited at a high level of generality and thus are insignificant extra-solution activity.
That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of the limitations encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of generic computer components, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the limitation represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed at abstract ideas. The claims do not include additional element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim 3 and 11 similarly recite the limitations “wherein the step of performing tuner codeword selection on the plurality of tuner characteristic data based on the user-defined weighting and the filtering range to generate the target tuner codeword includes:
processing the plurality of tuner characteristic data as an indicator for tuner codeword selection, wherein the indicator is defined as an indicator function of the plurality of tuner characteristic data for each signal band;
filtering the plurality of tuner codewords based on the user-defined weighting and the filtering range to generate a plurality of filtered tuner codewords;
calculating a determination function of each of the plurality of filtered tuner codewords; and
selecting the target tuner codeword having a lowest cost based on the determination function”.
As recited, the claims comprise steps that further refine the steps as recited in the independent claims 1 and 9 on which the instant claims depend.
Therefore, it is the steps of observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion that can be performed mentally and equivalent to human mental processes. The steps include mathematical calculations in the group of mathematical concepts. Both mental processes and mathematical concepts are unpatentable abstract ideas that the ‘basic tools of scientific and technological work’ are open to all.
Accordingly, claims 3 and 11 recite abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed at abstract ideas. The claims do not include additional element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 4 and 12 similarly recite the limitations “wherein the step of filtering the plurality of tuner codewords based on the user-defined weighting and the filtering range to generate the plurality of filtered tuner codewords includes:
filtering the plurality of tuner codewords based on the user-defined weighting of each transmission band and/or each receiving band”.
As recited as concepts performed in the human mind by evaluation, opinion and judgement of information, taking the inventory balancing above as example, including filtering the merchandise items for being updated by receiving and consuming. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of the limitations encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed at abstract ideas. The claims do not include additional element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 5 and 13 similarly recite the limitation “wherein the step of processing the plurality of tuner characteristic data as the indicator for tuner codeword selection includes:
calculating a delta power per tuner codeword for each signal band, wherein the delta power is defined as a power difference from a maximal power of the plurality of tuner codewords.”.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the step of calculating a delta power per tuner codeword as recited in the claim is mathematical calculation. The limitation falls within the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible. The claims do not include additional elements.
Claims 6 and 14 similarly recite the limitations “wherein the step of calculating the determination function of each of the plurality of filtered tuner codewords includes calculating a cost function of each of the plurality of filtered tuner codewords based on the delta power and the user-defined weighting for each signal band”.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the step of calculating a cost function as recited in the claim is mathematical calculation. The limitation falls within the "mathematical concepts" grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible. The claims do not include additional elements.
The claims do not include additional element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 7 and 15 similarly recite the limitations “wherein the filtering range is adjusted according to a standard deviation or a statistics variance”.
The claim comprises a step of “filtering range” as a limitation which is recited as concepts performed in the human mind by evaluation, opinion and judgement of information, as inventory balancing as example above, including filtering the merchandise items for being updated by receiving and consuming. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of the limitations encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitations in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the limitations represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
Further, the claim recites subject matters of “standard deviation” and “a statistics variance”.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the subject matters fall within the "mathematical concepts", grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea. The claims do not include additional element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed at abstract ideas. The claims do not include additional element(s) that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
Claims 8 and 16 similarly recite the limitations “the tuner codeword database is stored with the dimension of different antenna, antenna switch network (SN) status and multiple conditions with corresponding thresholds based on modulation-demodulation information; and
the tuner codeword includes aperture tuner setting, impedance tuner setting, and combinations of both aperture tuner and impedance tuner setting”.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, having dimension, condition and status of some physical structured component in a database is merely an outputting of the dimension, condition and status. An outputting step as such is clearly some concepts of observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement under the grouping of abstract ideas. As the above example of human routine activities of inventory balancing, the result of receiving and/or consuming merchandize items is updated on records on human brain or paper.
As recited as concepts performed in the human mind by observation, evaluation, opinion and judgement of information, as the inventory balancing as example described above, including updating inventory of merchandise items. That is, nothing in the claim elements precludes the step from practically being performed in the mind gathering and viewing data, and in the context of the limitations encompasses the user mentally and/or manually viewing and evaluating, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. As such, the limitation represents well-understood, routine, conventional activity. Accordingly, the claims recite an abstract idea.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claims are directed at abstract ideas. The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The claims are not patent eligible.
In conclusion, the limitations of the claims 2-8 and 10-16 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, all the elements of the claims as discussed and analyzed above represent well-understood, routine, conventional activity previously known to the industry and are specified at a high level of generality (See MPEP 2106.05(g) or 2106.05(d) for receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g. see Intellectual Ventures v. Symantec; Storing and retrieving information in memory: Versata; Analyzing data: Genetic Techs; Determining: OIP Techs; Electronic recordkeeping: Alice Corp). The claims are not patent eligible.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by
Yang; Lin: "SOFTWARE DEFINED ATSC TV DEMODULATOR WITH WI-FI TUNERS" (United States Patent Application Publication US 20150052574 A1, Date Published 2015-02-19; and Date Filed 2013-08-16, hereafter "Yang”).
As per claim 1, Yang teaches a tuner codeword database construction method comprising:
pre-processing a plurality of tuner codewords based on a user-defined weighting (See Fig. 8 and [0071] - [0077], multiple tuner IF signal being de-multiplexed, waveform being decompressed, converted, synchronized and further weighted based on signal-to-noise ratio (SNR));
performing tuner codeword selection on a plurality of tuner characteristic data based on the user-defined weighting and a filtering range to generate a target tuner codeword among the plurality of tuner codewords (See Figs. 8-9, [0078]-[0102], signals selective combining slicing, forwarding error correction, outputting MPEG TS signals, adjacent channel filtering, SRRC filtering and frequency shifting, and outputting decimated and field synchronized as symbol rate synchronized baseband signal); and
storing the target tuner codeword in a tuner codeword database, the tuner codeword database storing a plurality of stored tuner codewords for controlling at least one tuner of a user mobile device (See Fig. 7 and [0140], During the TV reception process, for each Wi-Fi transceiver signal burst, a Wi-Fi RF Signal (401) will transfer one 24 millisecond ATSC TV signal field from each Wi-Fi TV antenna to the system memory (404) in real time.).
As per claim 9, the claim recites a mobile device comprising:
an antenna control (See Yang: Fig. 4 and [0035], Multiple Antennas with Multiple Tuners);
a tuner codeword database coupled to the antenna control (See Yang: [0008], the wireless interface (Wi-Fi) transport stream format, and the vector-based digital signal processing algorithm);
a plurality of tuner sets coupled to the antenna control (See Yang: Fig. 5 and [0037]- [0042], digital signal is coupled to antenna)); and
the steps recited as operations steps of the method of claim 1 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102 above as being anticipated by Yang.
Accordingly, claim 9 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of - 35 USC § 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 non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 10 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over
Yang, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, in view of
ALON et al.: "WITH IMPROVED LINEARITY OF THE RF TRANSCEIVER FRONT END MODULE" (China Patent Application Publication CN 106464392 A, Date Published 2017-02-22; and Date Filed 2015-05-28, hereafter " ALON”).
As per claim 2, Yang does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of tuner characteristic data, generated from the plurality of mobile device configuration parameters, include receiving power, transmitting power and Voltage standing wave ratio (VSWR).
However, ALON teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein a plurality of tuner characteristic data, generated from the plurality of mobile device configuration parameters, include receiving power, transmitting power and Voltage standing wave ratio (VSWR) (See Page 34, claim 19, A power amplifier system, comprising: a front end module, comprising: configuring a power amplifier of an RF transmitting signal amplified RF transmission signal to produce an amplified antenna coupled to programmable antenna tuner. and a coupler between the power amplifier and the antenna tuner, the coupler configured to output signals associated with the RF forward power and reverse power measured value, the antenna tuner is adjustable to tune the impedance seen by the power amplifier of the. so as to provide non-linear coarse correction in the power amplifier system, a non-volatile memory for storing memory equalizer, said equalizer table having a plurality of entries generated during characterization of the front end module, and a processor configured to: (a) receiving the forward power and the reverse power output from the coupler to derive a voltage standing wave ratio (VSWR) measurements, (b) at least partially based on the VSWR to access entries in the table, the equalizer and (c) based on the accessed entry to adjust the RF transmit signal).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the Applicant’s application was filed to combine ALON’s teaching with Yang because ALON is dedicated to a used radio frequency (RF) electronic devices of the power amplifier system and Yang is dedicated to an application in a digital television system, more specifically the present invention relates to a multiple antenna, and the combined teaching of Yang and ALON references would have enabled Yang to derive from the measured forward power and reverse power output for the use of the measured value.
As per claim 10, the claim recites a mobile device comprising:
an antenna control; a tuner codeword database coupled to the antenna; a plurality of tuner sets coupled to the antenna control; and
the steps recited as operations steps of the method of claim 2 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 above as being unpatentable over Yang in view of ALON.
Accordingly, claim 10 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected claim 2.
Claims 3-6 and 11-14 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over
Yang, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, in view of
MA et al.: " DYNAMIC ANTENNA TUNER SETTING BY A WIRELESS DEVICE" (United States Patent Application Publication US 20240080049 A1, Date Published 2024-03-07; and Date Filed 2022-09-06, hereafter "MA”).
As per claim 3, Yang teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the step of performing tuner codeword selection on the plurality of tuner characteristic data based on the user-defined weighting and the filtering range to generate the target tuner codeword as described above in claims 1 and 9 rejections.
However, Yang does not explicitly teach the step includes processing the plurality of tuner characteristic data as an indicator for tuner codeword selection.
On the other hand, as an analogous art on antenna setting, MA teaches the step includes processing the plurality of tuner characteristic data as an indicator for tuner codeword selection (See [0006], the multi-SIM/eSIM wireless device can select one of the antenna hardware tuner settings to adjust parameters of the antenna hardware based on the SIMs/eSIMs that are active on the multi-SIM/eSIM wireless device and/or on cellular wireless network conditions, e.g., using key radio frequency performance indicators.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the Applicant’s application was filed to combine MA’s teaching with Yang because MA is dedicated to dynamically selecting antenna settings for reception of wireless signals in multiple radio frequency bands by wireless devices and Yang is dedicated to an application in a digital television system, more specifically the present invention relates to a multiple antenna, and the combined teaching of Yang and MA references would have enabled Yang to select an antenna tuner setting dynamically based on requirements of applications in use and key radio frequency performance indicators.
Yang in view of MA further teaches the following:
wherein the indicator is defined as an indicator function of the plurality of tuner characteristic data for each signal band (See MA: [0036], the baseband radio frequency software module 508 of the wireless device 102 selects an antenna tuner setting 514 to adjust parameters of the tunable antenna hardware 510 based on applications that are using wireless connections via the primary SIM/eSIM, e.g., as indicated by the application status information 504, and based on cellular wireless network conditions, e.g., as indicated by the key performance indicators);
filtering the plurality of tuner codewords based on the user-defined weighting and the filtering range to generate a plurality of filtered tuner codewords (See MA: [0029], the wireless circuitry 308 can include components of RF analog front-end circuitry, e.g., a set of one or more antennas, which can be interconnected with additional supporting RF circuitry that can include filters and other analog components that can be “configured” for transmission and/or reception of analog signals via one or more corresponding antennas to one or more of the first and second wireless networks 310A/B);
calculating a determination function of each of the plurality of filtered tuner codewords (See Yang: [0151], the functional block 604 performs the following steps: 1) extend the size of signal block 603 to 4096 data samples by appending zero-value samples to the end of the signal block; 2) transfer the new 4096-sample data block into frequency domain by using Fast Fourier Transform (FFT); 3) load the pre-calculated frequency response of the ACF filter from the system memory; 4) multiply the frequency response of the baseband signal from step 2 with the frequency response of the ACF filter from step 3;5) transfer the results of step 4 back to time domain using Inverse Fast Fourier Transform (IFFT); and 6) recover the time domain baseband signal by using the Overlap-Add algorithm.); and
selecting the target tuner codeword having a lowest cost based on the determination function (See MA: [0006], the multi-SIM/eSIM wireless device selects an antenna hardware tuner setting that allows signal reception of radio frequency bands used by the active SIMs/eSIMs. In some embodiments, the antenna hardware tuner setting is selected to boost receiver performance for the secondary SIM/eSIM, e.g., to improve a paging reception success rate.).
As per claim 4, Yang in view of MA teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the step of filtering the plurality of tuner codewords based on the user-defined weighting and the filtering range to generate the plurality of filtered tuner codewords includes:
filtering the plurality of tuner codewords based on the user-defined weighting of each transmission band and/or each receiving band (See MA: [0029], the wireless circuitry 308 can include components of RF analog front-end circuitry, e.g., a set of one or more antennas, which can be interconnected with additional supporting RF circuitry that can include filters and other analog components that can be “configured” for transmission and/or reception of analog signals via one or more corresponding antennas to one or more of the first and second wireless networks 310A/B).
As per claim 5, Yang in view of MA teaches the method according to claim 3, wherein the step of processing the plurality of tuner characteristic data as the indicator for tuner codeword selection includes:
calculating a delta power per tuner codeword for each signal band (See MA: [0023], the multi-SIM/eSIM wireless device can determine an antenna hardware tuner setting to use based on key performance metric indicators, such as signal strength, e.g., a reference signal received power (RSRP) value, and/or signal quality, e.g., a signal-to-noise-plus-interference ratio (SINR) value, for serving cells of the first cellular wireless network associated with the primary SIM/eSIM and/or the second cellular wireless network associated with the secondary SIM/eSIM. The signal strength reads on its calculation.),
wherein the delta power is defined as a power difference from a maximal power of the plurality of tuner codewords (See MA: [0023], the multi-SIM/eSIM wireless device can determine an antenna hardware tuner setting to use based on key performance metric indicators, such as signal strength, e.g., a reference signal received power (RSRP) value, and/or signal quality, e.g., a signal-to-noise-plus-interference ratio (SINR) value, for serving cells of the first cellular wireless network associated with the primary SIM/eSIM and/or the second cellular wireless network associated with the secondary SIM/eSIM. The signal strength reads on its difference).
As per claim 6, Yang in view of MA teaches the method according to claim 5, wherein the step of calculating the determination function of each of the plurality of filtered tuner codewords includes calculating a cost function of each of the plurality of filtered tuner codewords based on the delta power and the user-defined weighting for each signal band (See Yang: [0115], the MMSE Optimized Noise Whitening Filter Functional Block (807) uses the MMSE Optimized Noise Whitening Filter Coefficients (806) to remove the colored noise of the MRC Equalized Signal Block with Colored Noise (805) and outputs the Filtered MRC Equalized Signal Block with White Noise (808). The Decision Feedback Equalizer Functional Block (809) uses the MMSE Optimized Noise Whitening Filter Coefficients (806) as its filter coefficient to generate a Demodulated ATSC TV Signal Block (810) from the Filtered MRC Equalized Signal Block with White Noise).
As per claims 11-14, the claim recites a mobile device comprising:
an antenna control; a tuner codeword database coupled to the antenna; a plurality of tuner sets coupled to the antenna control; and
the steps recited as operations steps of the method of claims 3-6, respectively, and rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 above as being unpatentable over Yang in view of MA.
Accordingly, claims 11-14 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected claim claims 3-6, respectively.
Claims 7 and 15 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over
Yang, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, in view of
Albrett; Adam: "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR INTERACTING WITH BROADCAST PROGRAMMING" (United States Patent Application Publication US 20060062363 A1, Date Published 2006-03-23; and Date Filed 2005-09-15, hereafter "Albrett”).
As per claim 7, Yang does not explicitly teach the method according to claim 1, wherein the filtering range is adjusted according to a standard deviation or a statistics variance.
However, as an analogous art on digital signal management, Albrett teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the filtering range is adjusted according to a standard deviation or a statistics variance (See [0161] and [0163], the tuning signal detector may selectively detect the radiate local oscillator signal of an FM radio receiver or a television receiver, in which case the tuning signal detector may have two or more bandpass filters, with at least one of the bandpass filters passing a frequency range in which a radiated local oscillator signal of a television receiver may be found; and a comb filter that passes frequency ranges in which a radiated local oscillator signal may be present while blocking the frequency ranges in which a broadcast program signal is present).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the Applicant’s application was filed to combine ALBRETT’s teaching with Yang because ALBRETT is dedicated to tuning a broadcast receiver channel by determining from a radiated tuning signal emitted by the broadcast receiver while the receiver is presenting an item of broadcast programming and Yang is dedicated to an application in a digital television system, more specifically the present invention relates to a multiple antenna, and the combined teaching of Yang and ALBRETT references would have enabled Yang to use a channel as a basis for identifying information related to the item presented by the receiver.
As per claim 15, the claim recites a mobile device comprising:
an antenna control; a tuner codeword database coupled to the antenna; a plurality of tuner sets coupled to the antenna control; and
the steps recited as operations steps of the method of claim 7 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 above as being unpatentable over Yang in view of Albrett.
Accordingly, claim 15 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected claim 7.
Claims 8 and 16 are rejected under 35 USC § 103 as being unpatentable over
Yang, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, in view of
MA, as further applied to claims 3-6, and 11-14 above, and further in view of
ROUSU et al.: "METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR CONTROLLING PARAMETERS OF AN ANTENNA TUNER" (United States Patent Application Publication US 20140357200 A1, Date Published 2014-12-04; and Date Filed 2014-05-30, hereafter " ROUSU”).
As per claim 8, Yang in view of MA teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein:
the tuner codeword database is stored with the dimension of different antenna, antenna switch network (SN) status and multiple conditions with corresponding thresholds based on modulation-demodulation information (See MA: [0003] and [0006], subscriber identity module (SIM) or SIM profile, which the wireless device can use to register and interact with an MNO to obtain wireless services via a cellular wireless network and the antenna hardware can be configured for different radio frequency (RF) bands to improve reception of wireless signals. The multi-SIM/eSIM wireless device can store different antenna hardware tuner settings to use with different RF bands individually and with combinations of concurrent RF bands applicable for the cellular wireless networks associated with the SIMs/eSIMs of the multi-SIM/eSIM wireless device and a cellular wireless network associated with the secondary SIM/eSIM, e.g., when a received signal strength and/or received signal quality fall below associated performance thresholds.).
However, Yang in view of MA does not explicitly teach the tuner codeword includes aperture tuner setting, impedance tuner setting, and combinations of both aperture tuner and impedance tuner setting.
ON the other hand, as an analogous art on managing antenna tuner, ROUSU teaches the tuner codeword includes aperture tuner setting, impedance tuner setting, and combinations of both aperture tuner and impedance tuner setting (See [0002], [0007] and [0059], matching the impedance of the transceiver to the impedance of the antenna so that in different use scenarios of the terminal, the impedance is matched as well as possible between the antenna and the transceiver front end, performing changes in antenna environment, altering mechanical dimensions of the terminal, altering antenna directivity, altering antenna aperture gain, or changing the distance between antennas or TX and/or RX antenna port location(s), and wireless communication terminals which may be modem on module.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the Applicant’s application was filed to combine MA’s teaching with Yang in view of MA because ROUSU is dedicated to controlling parameters of an antenna tuner, MA is dedicated to dynamically selecting antenna settings for reception of wireless signals in multiple radio frequency bands by wireless devices and Yang is dedicated to an application in a digital television system, more specifically the present invention relates to a multiple antenna, and the combined teaching of Yang, MA and ROUSU references would have enabled Yang in view of MA to update antenna tuner parameters continuously in given time intervals
As per claim 15, the claim recites a mobile device comprising:
an antenna control; a tuner codeword database coupled to the antenna; a plurality of tuner sets coupled to the antenna control; and
the steps recited as operations steps of the method of claim 7 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 above as being unpatentable over Yang in view of MA, and further in view of ROUSU.
Accordingly, claim 16 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected claim 8.
Conclusion
Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. SEE MPEP 2141.02 [R-5] VI. PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS: A prior art reference must be considered in its entirety, i.e., as a whole, including portions that would lead away from the claimed invention. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Garlock, Inc., 721 F.2d 1540, 220 USPQ 303 (Fed. Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 851 (1984) In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). >See also MPEP §2123.
In the case of amending the Claimed invention, Applicant is respectfully requested to indicate the portion(s) of the specification which dictate(s) the structure relied on for proper interpretation and also to verify and ascertain the metes and bounds of the claimed invention.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUEN S LU whose telephone number is (571)272-4114. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F, 8-19, Mid-Flex 2 hours.
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, Mr. Aleksandr Kerzhner can be reached on 571-270-1760. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
KUEN S LU /Kuen S Lu/
Art Unit 2165
Primary Patent Examiner
July 20, 2026
Prosecution Insights