DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Acknowledgment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on 03/05/2026. Accordingly, claims 20-21 have been withdrawn from consideration and claims 1-19 and 22-36 are pending in the instant application.
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.
Claims 23-27, 29-31, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated Kyrolainen et al (US 10,684,318; art of record).
Regarding independent claim 23, Kyrolainen teaches a node for a measurement environment comprising: an interface configured for exchanging a wired signal and an antenna arrangement (fig. 1, 140 and its wired connection to probe antenna array 115); and wherein the node is configured for providing the wired signal based on a wireless signal received with the antenna arrangement and for RX-beamforming for receiving the wireless signal (receiving wireless signals using probe antenna array 115 and generate beams to device 160) (see col. 2, lines 54-56, “The beamforming procedure may be included in the testing using actual DUT antenna array and beamforming procedures if all clusters of a channel model (“isotropic channel”) are included in the OTA channel model”; col. 4, lines 42-47, “The OTA testing of a beamforming DUT may be performed in the near-field using a simplified chamber with fewer probes, as compared to conventional testing techniques”; and col. 6, line 51 to col. 7, line 22, “For purposes of illustration, the DUT 120 is a base station having a beamforming circuit, including an antenna array 125, for transmitting RF signals (e.g., to a UE). In alternative configurations, the DUT 120 may be a base station receiving and/or transmitting RF signals (e.g., from/to a UE) or a UE transmitting and/or receiving RF signals (e.g., to/from a base station), without departing from the scope of the present teachings.”); and/or for providing the wired signal to the antenna arrangement for a transmission based on the wired signal received with the interface and wherein the node is configured for TX-beamforming for transmitting the wireless signal (fig. 1, wired signal from device 160 to probe antenna array 115 for TX-beamforming the wireless signal to DUT 120 and col. 6, line 51 to col. 7, line 22, “For purposes of illustration, the DUT 120 is a base station having a beamforming circuit, including an antenna array 125, for transmitting RF signals (e.g., to a UE). In alternative configurations, the DUT 120 may be a base station receiving and/or transmitting RF signals (e.g., from/to a UE) or a UE transmitting and/or receiving RF signals (e.g., to/from a base station), without departing from the scope of the present teachings.”).
Regarding dependent claim 24, Kyrolainen further teaches wherein the node is configured for executing a control command to either use the antenna arrangement in a reception mode, in a transmission mode or in a full-duplex mode. See fig.1 and col. 6, lines 24-46.
Regarding dependent claim 25, Kyrolainen further teaches wherein the node comprises an array unit configured for controlling the antenna arrangement; wherein the node is configured for controlling the array unit so as to variably generate different beam patterns. See col. 9, lines 49-55.
Regarding dependent claim 26, Kyrolainen further teaches wherein the plurality of antenna elements comprises similar antenna characteristics when receiving the wireless signal and when transmitting the wireless signal; wherein the antenna elements deviate from a same characteristic by a metric. See col. 7, line 31 to col. 8, line 35.
Regarding dependent claim 27, Kyrolainen further teaches measurement system comprising a plurality of nodes according to claim 23. See fig. 1.
Regarding dependent claim 29, Kyrolainen further teaches wherein the measurement environment is configured for implementing a rotatory movement of the plurality of nodes and/or a translatory movement of the plurality of nodes. See col. 16, lines 26-33.
Regarding dependent claim 30, Kyrolainen further teaches wherein the measurement environment comprises a link antenna arrangement of the measurement environment. See fig. 1.
Regarding dependent claim 31, Kyrolainen further teaches wherein the link antenna arrangement is formed as virtual antenna arrangement implemented by at least one node of the measurement environment. See fig. 1.
Regarding independent claim 34, Kyrolainen teaches a measurement system comprising a plurality of nodes (fig. 1, 111-114), each node configured for receiving a signal from the DUT (120) and/or transmitting a signal to the DUT, wherein the measurement environment is adapted to implement a virtual link antenna arrangement using the plurality of nodes (“virtual” arrangement is regarded as just wireless communications within the measurement environment (110) for simulating and testing of DUT (120) and the instant application describes using channel emulator to emulate channel conditions to simulate virtual link antenna arrangement. (See also col. 5, lines 4-14 and col. 6, line 51 to col. 7, line 22).
Regarding dependent claim 35, Kyrolainen further teaches wherein the measurement environment does not comprise a physical link antenna to pair with a DUT to be tested by use of the nodes. See fig. 1.
Regarding dependent claim 36, Kyrolainen further teaches wherein at least one node is a node for a measurement environment comprising: an interface configured for exchanging a wired signal and an antenna arrangement; and wherein the node is configured for providing the wired signal based on a wireless signal received with the antenna arrangement and for RX-beamforming for receiving the wireless signal; and/or for providing the wired signal to the antenna arrangement for a transmission based on the wired signal received with the interface and wherein the node is configured for TX-beamforming for transmitting the wireless signal. See rationale as applied to claim 34 above.
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 of this title, 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 nonobviousness.
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.
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyrolainen et al (US 10,684,318; art of record) in view of Rowell (US 2018/0340967; art of record).
Regarding dependent claim 28, Kyrolainen teaches all subject matter claimed except to further teach wherein the plurality of nodes is arranged as at least a part of a Buckyball structure. However, such arrangements of plurality of nodes are notoriously well-known in the art for measuring DUT. For example, Rowell, from the same field of endeavor, teaches such arrangement. See Rowell: [0066], spherical coordinates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kyrolainen by employing the teachings as taught by Rowell so as to measure the DUT at different angles.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyrolainen et al (US 10,684,318; art of record) in view of Maruo (US 2020/0244377; art of record).
Regarding dependent claim 33, Kyrolainen teaches all subject matter claimed except to further teach wherein the measurement environment comprises at least one
reflector between a link antenna arrangement and the DUT. However, using the
reflector between a link antenna arrangement and the DUT in an measurement
environment (testing chamber) is notoriously well-known in the art for creating multiple
paths. For example, Maruo, from the same field of endeavor, teaches such use of
reflector. See Maruo: fig. 1 and [0093]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify
the invention of Kyrolainen by employing the teachings as taught by Maruo so as to use
reflector to create multiple paths in a testing environment.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-19 and 22 are allowed over prior art of record.
Claim 32 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
In the Remarks, Applicant traverses to the rejection by mainly arguing that the cited references Kyrolainen et al (US 10,684,318) fail to teach measurement environment that is capable of beam forming as recited 23-27, 29-31, and 34-36.
The examiner is respectfully not agreed. Kyrolainen teaches such beamforming environment having TX-beam forming and RX-beam forming at col. 4, lines 42-47; col. 6, line 66 to col. 7, line 17 and claim 11.
Based on the above rationale, it is believed that claims 23-31 and 33-36 are met by Kyrolainen et al (US 10,684,318) in view of Rowell (US 2018/0340967) and Maruo (US 2020/0244377) and the rejections are therefore still maintained.
However, Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-19 and 22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1-19 and 22 has been withdrawn.
Conclusion
Examiner's note: Examiner has cited particular columns and line numbers in the references as 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 the 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.
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 extension fee 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 DON NGUYEN VO whose telephone number is (571) 272-3018. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday to Friday from 9:00 to 6:30PM.
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kenneth N Vanderpuye, can be reached on 571-272-3078. 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.
/DON N VO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2634
Prosecution Insights