DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/12/2026 previously entered.
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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants' arguments and remarks filed on 07/10/2026 have been fully considered.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s sole argument is that Barker does not teach “a semi-static tilt setting in combination with a digital tilt setting” to obtain a desired vertical side lobe level, because the portion of Barker cited by the Office - paragraph [0032] - describes digital adaptive beamforming applied in the azimuth plane, not the vertical plane. Applicant asserts: “In Barker, including in the portion relied on by the Office, the adaptive beamforming (i.e., digital beamforming) is applied in the Azimuth plane, not the vertical plane. There is no disclosure of applying digital tilt settings or a combination of semi-static tilt setting with a digital tilt setting to obtain a desired vertical side lobe level for an antenna array arrangement, as required by claim 1.” RCE Remarks, p. 9.
This argument misreads the scope of Barker’s disclosure. Applicant has addressed only paragraph [0032] of Barker in isolation, while ignoring the remainder of Barker’s specification - which is the substance of Barker’s own inventive contribution. The rejection is not withdrawn.
Argument that Paragraph [0032] of Barker is background prior art, not Barker’s inventive disclosure. Applicant is correct that paragraph [0032] of Barker describes digital/adaptive beamforming in the azimuth plane while the elevation plane beam is static or semi-static. However, Applicant omits the critical context: paragraph [0032] is Barker’s description of the conventional prior art - specifically, the standard LTE/cellular antenna architecture that Barker’s invention explicitly sets out to improve upon. Paragraph [0032] characterizes the state of the art as having “adaptive Beamforming in the Azimuth plane and non-adaptive static or semi-static beam in the Elevation plane” precisely to frame the deficiency that Barker’s invention addresses. This conventional system is the starting point, not the endpoint, of Barker’s teaching.
Barker’s inventive solution begins at paragraph [0036], which identifies the gap: “it is not readily possible to create Uplink Beamforming in the same manner for the Elevation plane using a 4-branch diversity combining process” - i.e., elevation/vertical plane beamforming was not achievable with the conventional architecture of [0032]. Barker then introduces its invention as a means of providing exactly that capability.
Argument regarding Barker’s inventive disclosure teaches digital tilt in the vertical/elevation plane combined with a semi-static tilt component. Barker’s title is “Method and Apparatus for Providing Elevation Plane Spatial Beamforming” (emphasis added). The Abstract states that the disclosure “provides a method and apparatus for spatially filtering inter-cell co-channel interference in the elevation plane.” The entire inventive contribution of Barker is directed to digital control of beamforming in the vertical/elevation plane - the very plane the applicant argues Barker does not address.
Specifically, Barker’s inventive disclosure teaches the following in the vertical/elevation plane:
First, digital tilt in the elevation/vertical plane: Barker discloses at paragraph [0039] that the passive antenna distribution network “is fed (transmit)/feeds (receive) from/to a differentially phased signal input/output, where the angle of main beam elevation radiation pattern tilt is a function of the phase difference of the differential signal.” The differential phase between the two digital input ports of the BFN is the mechanism by which the elevation/vertical beam tilt is digitally controlled. This is a digital tilt setting applied directly in the vertical/elevation plane - not the azimuth plane of [0032].
Second, semi-static tilt in the elevation/vertical plane: FIG. 1 of Barker explicitly depicts the BFN architecture including a “Tilt Control Input” and “Tilt Control Splitter” feeding the passive network - elements that provide a predetermined tilt offset (bias) in the vertical radiation pattern that is set passively in the BFN structure and is not dynamically adapted per user. This is the semi-static vertical tilt component of the BFN.
Third, sidelobe reduction in combination with the tilt and digital control architecture: FIG. 2 of Barker explicitly labels a “COMPLEMENTARY MAGNITUDE SHIFTER (FOR SIDELOBE REDUCTION)” as a component of the BFN alongside the matched phase/constant delay elements and the differential digital inputs. The FIG. 2 caption at paragraph [0008] confirms this: the BFN in FIG. 2 creates a beam “with variable tilt; where tilt angle is a function of the amplitude difference applied across the Beamformer ports.” This establishes that controlling the vertical radiation pattern - including sidelobe levels - through the combination of passive BFN elements (semi-static tilt) and digital driving signals (digital tilt) is an express objective of Barker’s inventive architecture.
Fourth, the combined system objective: Paragraph [0042] states that the objective of Barker’s invention is “to deliver an adaptive spatially coherent Beamforming function in the elevation plane… using a completely passive antenna array connected to a simple base station MRC or similar receive combining process.” Paragraph [0043] confirms that the passive antenna arrays “are designed to vary mainbeam radiation elevation pattern (tilt) as a function of differential power (power ratio) and/or differential phase at the input ports to the antenna distribution network.” The elevation beam tilt - in the vertical plane - is thus the explicit result of combining the passive semi-static BFN structure with the digital differential phase input, exactly paralleling the “semi-static tilt setting in combination with a digital tilt setting” for vertical radiation pattern control required by the amended claims.
Accordingly, Barker’s inventive disclosure - as distinguished from the background of [0032] - teaches a passive semi-static tilt element in the BFN in combination with a digital phase-difference input (digital tilt) to control the vertical/elevation radiation pattern including sidelobe characteristics. Applicant’s argument that Barker’s digital component is only in the azimuth plane is refuted by Barker’s entire inventive disclosure, which is specifically and exclusively directed to elevation/vertical plane digital tilt control.
Applicant relies on the instant application specification. Applicant cites paragraphs [0009], [0010], and [0097] of the subject application’s specification to argue that the claimed combination addresses a recognized deficiency in the art. RCE Remarks, p. 9. As previously noted, an applicant’s own specification does not constitute prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102 or 103 and cannot be used to establish what was or was not known in the art at the time of the invention. The specification’s characterization of a “need” for improved vertical beamforming does not demonstrate that the claimed combination was unknown or nonobvious - it reflects only the applicant’s framing of the problem, not an objective assessment of the prior art. Barker’s explicit teaching of elevation plane digital tilt + semi-static tilt for vertical radiation pattern control (including sidelobe management) independently establishes that the concept was known prior to the filing date of the instant application.
The four-reference combination is maintained.
Goransson provides the sub-array antenna architecture with a coarse beam director (sub-array beam pointing direction setting) separate from and independently controllable from a fine beam director (digital antenna beam pointing direction setting) in array antenna columns.
Zimmerman establishes that sub-array beam pointing direction settings can differ from corresponding digital antenna beam pointing direction settings, providing motivation for differential settings between the sub-array and digital levels.
Yu teaches adjusting sub-array beam pointing direction settings to achieve a desired vertical side lobe level through sub-array beam pattern control.
Barker teaches that in base station antenna array systems of this type, the sub-array-level beam pointing direction settings are implemented as a semi-static tilt (passive BFN tilt bias, FIG. 1) in combination with a digital tilt (differential phase from the base station digital processing, paragraphs [0039-0043]) to control the vertical/elevation radiation pattern, including sidelobe levels (FIG. 2, sidelobe reduction element).
A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to implement the sub-array beam pointing direction settings of the Goransson/Zimmerman combination - applied to the vertical sidelobe control objective of Yu - using the semi-static tilt + digital tilt in the vertical plane architecture that Barker teaches as its inventive contribution, yielding the predictable result of controlled vertical sidelobe levels. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416-417 (2007).
Applicant’s argument addresses only paragraph [0032] of Barker, which is the prior art background section, and ignores Barker’s inventive disclosure at paragraphs [0039-0043] and FIGS. 1 and 2, which expressly teach digital elevation/vertical tilt combined with semi-static tilt for vertical radiation pattern control including sidelobe management. The rejection of claims 1-17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is maintained.
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 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 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Goransson (US 11394440 B2) in view of Zimmerman (US 11689263 B2) and Yu (US 20030020646 A1), further in view of Barker et al. (US 2013/0044650 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Goransson teaches: An array antenna arrangement comprising at least one set of at least two sub-array antennas, where each set of sub-array antennas is mounted such that a corresponding array antenna column is formed (Figs. 3B, 5A-D, 6A-D),
where, for each polarization in each set of sub-array antennas: each sub-array antenna comprises a corresponding sub-array antenna port that is associated with a certain sub-array antenna beam pointing direction setting (Abstract: “obtaining a desired beam direction; configuring a coarse beam director, being configurable to provide only a fixed number of beam directions for the set of antennas, to provide a beam direction being closest to the desired beam direction”; col. 6, lines 21-34: port configurations),
each sub-array antenna port is connected to a corresponding radio chain in a set of radio chains, where each set of radio chains is adapted to provide a corresponding digital antenna beam pointing direction setting (Col. 4, lines 40-45: “The fine beam director may provide an adjustment in digital domain radio frequency, RF, processing... The fine beam director may provide an adjustment in digital domain baseband processing”)
Goransson in view of Zimmerman does not explicitly teach, but Yu teaches:
wherein sub-array beam pointing direction settings associated with corresponding sub-array antenna ports are adjusted such that a desired vertical side lobe level is obtained for the array antenna arrangement (Yu paragraph [0035]: “using the spatial degrees of freedom of each sub-array (i.e., the number of available elements in each sub-array) to steer at least one null of each sub-array beam toward the jamming interference“; Yu Abstract: “A radar system and technique provide the capability to detect a target of interest and maintain the detection in the presence of multiple mainlobe and sidelobe jamming interference“; Yu Figure 4, step 18: “Adaptively Form Sub-Array Beams – Steer Sub-Array Beam Pattern Null(s) Toward Interference – Maintain Boresight Gain“; Yu paragraph [0025]: discusses minimizing jammer power while maintaining sub-array boresight gain through adaptive weight adjustment).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the adjustable sub-array beam pointing system of Goransson (‘440) with the adaptive side lobe control techniques of Yu (‘646). One would have been motivated to do so in order to address the grating lobe problems explicitly identified in Goransson (col. 6, lines 47-55: “grating lobes occur…A grating lobe is a side lobe with an amplitude in the vicinity of the main lobe“). Yu provides a solution for suppressing unwanted side lobes through sub-array beam adjustment while maintaining desired beam characteristics, which directly addresses Goransson’s acknowledged problem of side lobe control in antenna arrays. The combination would optimize antenna performance by reducing interference while maintaining signal quality in cellular communication systems.
Goransson teaches: wherein, in at least one set of sub-array antennas, at least one sub-array beam pointing direction setting, differs by at least one degree from a corresponding digital antenna beam pointing direction setting (Col. 2, lines 13-15: “The method may be repeated for a plurality of sets of antennas, whereby different resulting beam directions are 15 provided for different sets of antennas.”; the coarse beam director for the sub-array level - Abstract: “configuring a coarse beam director, being configurable to provide only a fixed number of beam directions for the set of antennas, to provide a beam direction being closest to the desired beam direction“; fine beam director (digital level) - Col. 2, lines 40-45: “The fine beam director may provide an adjustment in digital domain radio frequency, RF, processing … The fine beam director may provide an adjustment in digital domain baseband processing“; differential control taught - Abstract: “configuring a fine beam director, being configurable more finely than the coarse beam director, to be in a fine beam direction such that a resulting beam direction for set of antennas, being a combination of the beam direction of the coarse beam director and the fine beam director, corresponds to the desired beam direction” - this teaches that the coarse and fine beam directors are set to different values that combine to achieve the desired result; Goransson explicit example shows differential settings - Figs. 5A-D show digital tilt values of 0°, 2°, 4°, and 6° being applied to sub-arrays (col. 6, lines 39-45). When combined with the coarse beam director settings, these create differential configurations between the sub-array level and digital level beam pointing.)
Goransson teaches on differential beam control and Zimmerman reinforces differential beam control: (Col. 6, lines 35-51: “Digital beamforming may be performed so that RF signals are transmitted and received through two or more of the linear arrays, with appropriate amplitude and phase weighting provided for each linear array, in order to generate a relatively narrow antenna beam in the azimuth plane that has a high gain”; This teaches that different settings at different control levels (physical array configuration vs. digital processing) optimize antenna performance.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the antenna array system of Goransson with the different beam pointing settings of Zimmerman. One would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize antenna performance by allowing different configurations between the physical antenna elements and digital beamforming and in order to optimize antenna performance by minimizing interference while maximizing gain in desired directions. Even if Goransson’s specific examples do not explicitly show a one-degree differential between sub-array and digital settings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement such a differential because: Goransson teaches optimization parameter in that the coarse and fine beam directors work together with different values to achieve optimal beam direction. The specific difference (at least one degree) is merely an optimization parameter within the ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art. Goransson teaches continuous control range with adjustable beam control mechanisms. One of ordinary skill would understand that any differential value, including one degree or more, could be selected based on the desired beam characteristics and side lobe suppression requirements (as taught by Yu). Setting the sub-array and digital beam pointing direction settings to differ by at least one degree represents a predictable variation within Goransson’s taught range of independent control, combined with Zimmerman’s teaching of differential configurations for performance optimization.
Goransson in view of Zimmerman and Yu does not explicitly teach, but Barker et al. (‘650) teaches:
wherein the sub-array beam pointing direction settings adjusted to obtain the desired vertical side lobe level for the antenna array arrangement includes a semi-static tilt setting in combination with a digital tilt setting for the at least one set of sub-array antennas ( [0032] teaches that each passive antenna array column is a simple static or semi-static beamformer, with “a variable tilt function (semi-static) imposing phase delays at the individual antenna elements of the array”, while “The Adaptive Beamforming (function) is applied across the passive antenna arrays, thus having adaptive Beamforming in the Azimuth plane and non-adaptive static or semi-static beam in the Elevation plane”. Barker additionally teaches that the beamforming network for such an antenna array expressly incorporates a sidelobe reduction component in combination with the tilt-setting phase arrangement (Fig. 2 - complementary magnitude shifter (for sidelobe reduction)), confirming that combining a semi-static sub-array tilt setting with a digital beam pointing direction setting to manage vertical side lobe levels was a recognized design objective in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the antenna array system of Goransson with the different beam pointing settings of Zimmerman, the sub-array beam adjustment for side lobe level control of Yu, and the semi-static sub-array tilt architecture of Barker. One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Goransson, Zimmerman, and Yu with the semi-static tilt convention taught by Barker because Barker expressly identifies the semi-static sub-array tilt combined with digital beamforming as the established standard architecture for base station antenna array columns in cellular systems (Barker, [0032]), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would naturally implement the sub-array beam pointing direction settings of the Goransson/Zimmerman architecture using this well-known convention. Furthermore, since Yu teaches adjusting sub-array beam settings to control sidelobe characteristics, and Barker teaches that a semi-static tilt at the sub-array level is the recognized means for imposing such elevation-domain beam pointing adjustments while the digital radio chain handles the adaptive fine-pointing function, the combination of a semi-static tilt setting with a digital tilt setting to achieve the desired vertical side lobe level would have been a predictable application of known techniques to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 2, Goransson in view of Zimmerman and Yu, further in view of Barker teaches the array antenna arrangement according to claim 1.
Goransson teaches: wherein each sub-array antenna comprises at least two sub sub-arrays having one or two common polarizations, each sub sub-array comprising at least one antenna element (Col. 1, lines 30-35: “dividing each antenna column into sub-arrays, where each sub-array is fed by an active radio port per polarization”; Col. 6, lines 29-45; Col. 2, lines 34-36: “The coarse beam director may be based on configuring the beam direction for the set of antennas by different phase shifts”).
Regarding Claim 3, Goransson in view of Zimmerman and Yu, further in view of Barker teaches the array antenna arrangement according to claim 1.
Goransson teaches: wherein each sub-array antenna beam pointing direction setting is obtained by means of at least one controllable phase shifter for each sub-array antenna port (Col. 2, lines 37-38: “The coarse beam director may comprise a set of selectively applied time delay elements” and Col. 4, lines 59-65: “The time delay elements can be based on a True Time Delay (TTD) unit where the time delay between the antenna branches is changed”).
Regarding Claim 4, Goransson in view of Zimmerman and Yu, further in view of Barker teaches the array antenna arrangement according to claim 1.
Goransson teaches: wherein each sub-array antenna beam pointing direction setting is obtained by means of fixed predetermined phase shifts (Col. 3, lines 7-22: “configuring a coarse beam director, being configurable to provide only a fixed number of beam directions for the set of antennas” and Col. 4, line 52 to Col. 5, line 10: “The phase delays can be selectively applied e.g. using a Butler matrix or any other suitable distribution structure”).
Regarding Claim 5, Goransson in view of Zimmerman and Yu, further in view of Barker teaches the array antenna arrangement according to claim 1.
Goransson teaches: wherein the sub-array antenna beam pointing direction settings are the same for the sub-array antenna ports of at least one set of sub-array antennas (Col. 2, lines 41-60: “The beam direction may be applied for all communication channels for which the set of antennas are used”).
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, Goransson in view of Zimmerman and Yu, further in view of Barker teaches the array antenna arrangement according to claim 1.
Goransson teaches: differ by at least one degree (Col. 2, lines 13-15: “The method may be repeated for a plurality of sets of antennas, whereby different resulting beam directions are 15 provided for different sets of antennas.”; the coarse beam director for the sub-array level - Abstract: “configuring a coarse beam director, being configurable to provide only a fixed number of beam directions for the set of antennas, to provide a beam direction being closest to the desired beam direction“; fine beam director (digital level) - Col. 2, lines 40-45: “The fine beam director may provide an adjustment in digital domain radio frequency, RF, processing … The fine beam director may provide an adjustment in digital domain baseband processing“; differential control taught - Abstract: “configuring a fine beam director, being configurable more finely than the coarse beam director, to be in a fine beam direction such that a resulting beam direction for set of antennas, being a combination of the beam direction of the coarse beam director and the fine beam director, corresponds to the desired beam direction” - this teaches that the coarse and fine beam directors are set to different values that combine to achieve the desired result; Goransson explicit example shows differential settings - Figs. 5A-D show digital tilt values of 0°, 2°, 4°, and 6° being applied to sub-arrays (col. 6, lines 39-45). When combined with the coarse beam director settings, these create differential configurations between the sub-array level and digital level beam pointing.)
Goransson does not explicitly teach, but Zimmerman teaches: wherein the sub-array antenna beam pointing direction settings differ by at least one degree (rejection as noted for Claim 1) for the sub-array antenna ports of at least one set of sub-array antennas (Col. 6, lines 15-34: “The azimuth boresight pointing direction of each linear array may be offset by approximately 90° from the azimuth boresight pointing directions of two adjacent linear arrays”; col. 15, lines 19-34: “the linear arrays 220 may be sufficiently decorrelated, particularly when the antenna 200 is deployed in a dense urban environment. As such, the small cell base station antenna 200 may be used as both a beam-forming antenna and a MIMO antenna” demonstrating that different pointing directions for different arrays provide performance benefits.)
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Zimmerman’s teaching of offset beam pointing directions (differing by at least one degree) to Goransson’s sub-array antenna system. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide wider coverage area, improved signal diversity, and better overall antenna performance through spatially diverse beam directions as taught by Zimmerman.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, Goransson in view of Zimmerman and Yu, further in view of Barker teaches the array antenna arrangement according to claim 1.
Goransson teaches: wherein the digital antenna beam pointing direction settings are the same for those sets of radio chains that are connected to the sub-array antenna ports of at least one set of sub-array antennas (Col. 2, lines 41-60: “The beam direction may be applied for all communication channels for which the set of antennas are used” and Col. 2, lines 40-45: “The fine beam director may provide a general offset to a digital domain beamforming calculation in baseband processing”).
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Goransson in view of Zimmerman and Yu, further in view of Barker teaches the array antenna arrangement according to claim 1.
Goransson does not explicitly teach, but Zimmerman teaches: wherein the digital antenna beam pointing direction settings differ by at least one degree for those sets of radio chains that are connected to the sub-array antenna ports of at least one set of sub-array antennas (Col. 6, lines 35-51: “Digital beamforming may be performed... with appropriate amplitude and phase weighting provided for each linear array, in order to generate a relatively narrow antenna beam in the azimuth plane that has a high gain”).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement Zimmerman’s digital beamforming system with digital antenna beam pointing direction settings that differ by at least one degree for different sets of radio chains. One would have been motivated to do so in order to provide optimized beam coverage to different users or coverage areas, maximize antenna gain in desired directions, and minimize interference as taught by Zimmerman. Different phase weightings inherently create angular differences. Digital beamforming with “different…phase weighting provided for each linear array” (Zimmerman col. 6, lines 35-51) inherently creates different beam pointing directions for the digital antenna beams associated with different radio chains. The phase differences in beamforming translate to angular differences in beam direction. For typical antenna spacings and operating frequencies, phase weightings that differ enough to “generate a relatively narrow antenna beam” (Zimmerman col. 6, lines 50-51) generally result in beam pointing direction differences of at least one degree. Zimmerman teaches different azimuth boresight pointing directions for different linear arrays (col. 6, lines 15-34: “approximately 90°” offset). When digital beamforming with different amplitude and phase weightings is applied to these arrays (as taught in col. 6, lines 35-51), the resulting digital antenna beam pointing directions necessarily differ by at least one degree. Zimmerman describes at col. 16, lines 7-24 that “the beam-forming radio 42 may determine amplitude and phase weights to apply to the signals received at each port 244-1 through 244-8 for each time slot…The radio 42 may communicate with a different user (or set of users) during each time slot in the frame.” Zimmerman does not explicitly state “one degree,” it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that applying different digital beamforming weights (as explicitly taught by Zimmerman) to achieve “relatively narrow antenna beam[s]” for different arrays predictably results in digital beam pointing direction settings that differ by at least one degree. Configuring digital beamforming with angular differences of at least one degree is well within the routine capabilities of one skilled in antenna array design, particularly when the goal is to serve different users or coverage areas as taught by Zimmerman. The specific angular difference (at least one degree) is a routine design parameter that would be selected based on user locations, coverage requirements, and interference mitigation needs—all routine considerations in the art. Further, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the antenna array system of Goransson with the different digital beam settings of Zimmerman, the side lobe level control of Yu, and the semi-static tilt teaching of Barker. One would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize beam patterns for different coverage requirements and signal conditions of Zimmerman, while achieving the vertical side lobe management benefits taught by the combination of Yu and Barker.
Regarding Claim 9, Goransson in view of Zimmerman and further in view of Yu teaches: A method for obtaining a desired beam pointing direction for an array antenna arrangement having at least one set of at least two sub-array antennas mounted such that a corresponding array antenna column is formed (Figs. 3B, 5A-D, 6A-D),
where, for each polarization in each set of sub-array antennas: each sub-array antenna comprises a corresponding sub-array antenna port that is associated with a certain sub-array antenna beam pointing direction setting (Abstract: “obtaining a desired beam direction; configuring a coarse beam director, being configurable to provide only a fixed number of beam directions for the set of antennas, to provide a beam direction being closest to the desired beam direction”; col. 6, lines 21-34: port configurations), and
each sub-array antenna port is connected to a corresponding radio chain in a set of radio chains, where each set of radio chains is adapted to provide a digital antenna beam pointing direction setting (Col. 4, lines 40-45: “The fine beam director may provide an adjustment in digital domain radio frequency, RF, processing... The fine beam director may provide an adjustment in digital domain baseband processing”)
wherein the method comprises: providing a digital antenna beam pointing direction setting for each sub-array antenna port (Col. 2, lines 41-43: “The fine beam director may provide a general offset to a digital domain beamforming calculation in baseband processing”) and;
Goransson in view Zimmerman does not explicitly teach, but Yu teaches: adjusting sub-array beam pointing direction settings associated with corresponding sub- array antenna ports such that a desired vertical side lobe level is obtained for the array antenna arrangement ([0035]: “Thus, the jamming is cancelled by the adaptive sub-array beamformer 8, using the spatial degrees of freedom of each sub-array (i.e., the number of available elements in each sub-array) to steer at least one null of each sub-array beam toward the jamming interference.”; Abstract: “A radar system and technique provide the capability to detect a target of interest and maintain the detection in the presence of multiple mainlobe and sidelobe jamming interference.”; Fig. 4, step 18).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the antenna array system of Goransson with the different beam pointing settings of Zimmerman with the adaptive sub-array beam pattern control techniques of Yu. One would have been motivated to do so in order to optimize antenna performance by suppressing unwanted side lobe interference while maintaining desired beam pointing direction, thereby improving signal quality and reducing interference in cellular communication systems. Yu’s technique of steering nulls toward interference sources directly addresses the grating lobe problems acknowledged in Goransson (Col. 6, lines 49-53: “grating lobes occur. These occur due to insufficient spatial resolution between sub-arrays, analogous to under-sampling of a signal in the time domain. A grating lobe is a side lobe with an amplitude in the vicinity of the main lobe”), providing a solution for achieving desire side lobe levels through sub-array adjustment.
Goransson in view of Zimmerman does not explicitly teach, but Yu teaches:
wherein sub-array beam pointing direction settings associated with corresponding sub-array antenna ports are adjusted such that a desired vertical side lobe level is obtained for the array antenna arrangement (Yu paragraph [0035]: “using the spatial degrees of freedom of each sub-array (i.e., the number of available elements in each sub-array) to steer at least one null of each sub-array beam toward the jamming interference“; Yu Abstract: “A radar system and technique provide the capability to detect a target of interest and maintain the detection in the presence of multiple mainlobe and sidelobe jamming interference“; Yu Figure 4, step 18: “Adaptively Form Sub-Array Beams – Steer Sub-Array Beam Pattern Null(s) Toward Interference – Maintain Boresight Gain“; Yu paragraph [0025]: discusses minimizing jammer power while maintaining sub-array boresight gain through adaptive weight adjustment).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the adjustable sub-array beam pointing system of Goransson (‘440) with the adaptive side lobe control techniques of Yu (‘646). One would have been motivated to do so in order to address the grating lobe problems explicitly identified in Goransson (col. 6, lines 47-55: “grating lobes occur…A grating lobe is a side lobe with an amplitude in the vicinity of the main lobe“). Yu provides a solution for suppressing unwanted side lobes through sub-array beam adjustment while maintaining desired beam characteristics, which directly addresses Goransson’s acknowledged problem of side lobe control in antenna arrays. The combination would optimize antenna performance by reducing interference while maintaining signal quality in cellular communication systems.
Goransson in view of Zimmerman and Yu does not explicitly teach, but Barker et al. (‘650) teaches:
wherein the sub-array beam pointing direction settings adjusted to obtain the desired vertical side lobe level for the antenna array arrangement includes a semi-static tilt setting in combination with a digital tilt setting for the at least one set of sub-array antennas ( [0032] teaches that each passive antenna array column is a simple static or semi-static beamformer, with “a variable tilt function (semi-static) imposing phase delays at the individual antenna elements of the array”, while “The Adaptive Beamforming (function) is applied across the passive antenna arrays, thus having adaptive Beamforming in the Azimuth plane and non-adaptive static or semi-static beam in the Elevation plane”. Barker additionally teaches that the beamforming network for such an antenna array expressly incorporates a sidelobe reduction component in combination with the tilt-setting phase arrangement (Fig. 2 - complementary magnitude shifter (for sidelobe reduction)), confirming that combining a semi-static sub-array tilt setting with a digital beam pointing direction setting to manage vertical side lobe levels was a recognized design objective in the art.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the antenna array system of Goransson with the different beam pointing settings of Zimmerman, the sub-array beam adjustment for side lobe level control of Yu, and the semi-static sub-array tilt architecture of Barker. One would have been motivated to combine the teachings of Goransson, Zimmerman, and Yu with the semi-static tilt convention taught by Barker because Barker expressly identifies the semi-static sub-array tilt combined with digital beamforming as the established standard architecture for base station antenna array columns in cellular systems (Barker, [0032]), and a person of ordinary skill in the art would naturally implement the sub-array beam pointing direction settings of the Goransson/Zimmerman architecture using this well-known convention. Furthermore, since Yu teaches adjusting sub-array beam settings to control sidelobe characteristics, and Barker teaches that a semi-static tilt at the sub-array level is the recognized means for imposing such elevation-domain beam pointing adjustments while the digital radio chain handles the adaptive fine-pointing function, the combination of a semi-static tilt setting with a digital tilt setting to achieve the desired vertical side lobe level would have been a predictable application of known techniques to yield predictable results.
Regarding Claim 10, Goransson in view of Zimmerman and Yu, further in view of Barker teaches: The method according to claim 9, wherein, for at least one set of sub-array antennas, at least one sub-array beam pointing direction setting differs by at least one degree from the corresponding digital antenna beam pointing direction setting.
This limitation is substantively identical to the limitation in claim 9 (and claim 1) and is taught by the combination of Goransson and Zimmerman in view of Yu as detailed above in the analysis for claims 1 and 9.
Regarding Claim 11, Goransson in view of Zimmerman and Yu, further in view of Barker teaches: The method according to claim 9,
Goransson teaches: wherein each sub-array antenna has at least two sub sub-arrays using one or two common polarizations, each sub sub- array using at least one antenna element (Col. 1, lines 30-35: “dividing each antenna column into sub-arrays, where each sub-array is fed by an active radio port per polarization”; Col. 6, lines 29-45; Col. 2, lines 34-36: “The coarse beam director may be based on configuring the beam direction for the set of antennas by different phase shifts”).
Regarding Claim 12, Goransson in view of Zimmerman and Yu, further in view of Barker teaches: The method according to claim 9,
Goransson teaches: wherein each sub-array antenna beam pointing direction setting is obtained by means of at least one controllable phase shifter for each sub-array antenna port (Col. 2, lines 37-38: “The coarse beam director may comprise a set of selectively applied time delay elements” and Col. 4, lines 59-65: “The time delay elements can be based on a True Time Delay (TTD) unit where the time delay between the antenna branches is changed”).
Regarding Claim 13, Goransson in view of Zimmerman and Yu, further in view of Barker teaches: The method according to claim 9,
Goransson teaches: wherein each sub-array antenna beam pointing direction setting is obtained by means of fixed predetermined phase shifts (Col. 3, lines 7-22: “configuring a coarse beam director, being configurable to provide only a fixed number of beam directions for the set of antennas” and Col. 4, line 52 to Col. 5, line 10: “The phase delays can be selectively applied e.g. using a Butler matrix or any other suitable distribution structure”).
Regarding Claim 14, Goransson in view of Zimmerman and Yu, further in view of Barker teaches: The method according to claim 9,
Goransson teaches: wherein the sub-array antenna beam pointing direction settings are the same for the sub-array antenna ports of at least one set of sub-array antennas (Col. 2, lines 41-60: “The beam direction may be applied for all communication channels for which the set of antennas are used”).
Regarding Claim 15, Goransson in view of Zimmerman and Yu, further in view of Barker teaches: The method according to claim 9, wherein the sub-array antenna beam pointing direction settings differ by at least one degree for the sub-array antenna ports of at least one set of sub-array antennas.
This limitation is substantively identical to the limitation in claim 6 and is taught by the combination of Goransson and Zimmerman in view of Yu as detailed above in the analysis for claims 6.
Regarding Claim 16, Goransson in view of Zimmerman and Yu, further in view of Barker teaches: The method according to claim 9, wherein the digital antenna beam pointing direction settings are the same for those sets of radio chains that are connected to the sub-array antenna ports of at least one set of sub-array antennas.
This limitation is substantively identical to the limitation in claim 7 and is taught by the combination of Goransson and Zimmerman in view of Yu as detailed above in the analysis for claims 7.
Regarding Claim 17, Goransson in view of Zimmerman and Yu, further in view of Barker teaches: The method according to claim 9, wherein the digital antenna beam pointing direction settings differ by at least one degree for those sets of radio chains that are connected to the sub-array antenna ports of at least one set of sub-array antennas.
This limitation is substantively identical to the limitation in claim 8 and is taught by the combination of Goransson and Zimmerman in view of Yu as detailed above in the analysis for claims 8.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REMASH R GUYAH whose telephone number is (571)270-0115. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30.
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, Resha H Desai can be reached at (571) 270-7792. 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.
/REMASH R GUYAH/Examiner, Art Unit 3648
/RESHA DESAI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648
