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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filed 1 July 2026, in view of the amendments with respect to claims 1, 5-12, 14, and 17-22 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The 112(b) rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 5-14, and 17-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 10-14, 17, and 22-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong et al. US 2014/0073337 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Hong”) in view of Trigui et al. US 2009/0323530 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Trigui”). Note: Hong and Trigui were cited by the applicant in the IDS received 10 January 2023.
As to claim 1, Hong teaches a network node configured for multilayer, spatially diverse communications (¶¶139 and 176; figures 16 and 18), the network node comprising:
a group of antennas configured to radiate at least two beams within a cell on different frequencies so that overlapping portions of the at least two beams do not interfere (¶¶100, 139, 172, 175, and 177; figures 16 and 18: select frequency F2B for Beam 2 to avoid interference with the overlapping portion of beam 1 operating at frequency F1), and
a beamformer, the beamformer being configured to incrementally vary a beam width of at least one of the at least two beams based at least in part on a density of wireless devices (WDs) within a region of coverage of at least one of the at least two beams (¶¶68, 79, 89, 135, 174, and 178; figures 15, 16, and 18: beamforming unit uses the antennas to perform beamforming and adjust the beam shape/widths according to the number of cells, terminal location, and traffic load in the different coverage areas of the beams (i.e. terminal density in the coverage of the beam(s))),
wherein the beam width is selected that results in a narrowest beam width for which communication can be sustained (¶¶68, 79, 89, 135, 174, and 178; figures 15, 16, and 18: 10 degrees is selected as the narrowest beam width that can support communication for the WDs).
Although Hong teaches “A network node…can be sustained,” Hong does not explicitly disclose “with the density…least two beams”.
However, Trigui teaches the beam width is selected that results in a narrowest beam width for which communication can be sustained with the density of wireless devices (WDs) within the region of coverage of the beams (¶¶6-8, 10, 35, and 95; figure 4: perform adaptive beamforming to narrow the beam width to only cover the density of subscribers (environment density)),
the beamformer further configured to incrementally vary a pointing angle of at least one of the at least two beams based at least in part on the density of wireless devices (WDs) within the region of coverage of at least one of the at least two beams (¶¶6-8, 10, 35, and 95; figure 4; claim 6: perform adaptive beamforming to continuously adapt the shape for the coverage area by changing a pointing angle/direction as the environment/subscriber density changes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Hong by including “with the density…least two beams” as taught by Trigui because it provides Hong’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of reducing interference and congestion (Trigui, ¶¶8, 10; figure 4).
As to claim 5, Hong in view of Trigui teaches the network node of Claim 1. Hong further teaches wherein the pointing angle is selected that results in a highest concentration of the WDs supported by one of the at least two beams (¶¶68, 79, 89, 135, 174, and 178; figures 15, 16, and 18).
As to claim 10, Hong in view of Trigui teaches the network node of Claim 1. Hong further teaches wherein the network node is further configured to add beams, each added beam having a beam width that is narrower than the current beam width when the number of the wireless devices (WDs) within coverage of one of the at least two beams exceeds a threshold (¶¶68, 79, 89, 135, 156, 174, and 178; figures 15, 16, and 18).
As to claim 11, Hong in view of Trigui teaches the network node of Claim 1. Hong further teaches wherein the network node is further configured to remove beams and adjust the width of at least one of remaining beams (¶¶68, 79, 89, 135, 156, 174, and 178; figures 15, 16, and 18).
As to claim 12, Hong in view of Trigui teaches the network node of Claim 1. Hong further teaches wherein the group of antennas is configured to be excited to radiate a third beam within the cell on a first frequency of the frequencies of the at least two beams, the third beam being positioned such that only sidelobes of the third beam overlap a main beam of the at least two beam that is on the first frequency (¶¶100, 159, 172, 175, and 177; figure 18).
As to claim 13, claim 13 is rejected the same way as claim 1.
As to claim 14, claim 14 is rejected the same way as claim 2.
As to claim 15, claim 15 is rejected the same way as claim 3.
As to claim 17, claim 17 is rejected the same way as claim 5.
As to claim 22, claim 22 is rejected the same way as claim 10.
As to claim 23, claim 23 is rejected the same way as claim 11.
As to claim 24, claim 24 is rejected the same way as claim 12.
As to claim 25, Hong teaches an advanced antenna system (AAS) (¶100; figures 16 and 18), comprising:
a plurality of antennas (¶¶100 and 139; figure 16);
processing circuitry in communication with the plurality of antennas (¶139; figure 16), the processing circuitry configured to:
logically divide a coverage area into a plurality of sectors (¶¶100 and 159; figure 18: N sectors);
steer a first main beam to a first sector of the plurality of sectors at a first frequency (¶¶100, 159, and 175-177; figure 18: Beam 1 610 in first sector at frequency F1);
steer a second main beam to a second sector of the plurality of sectors at the first frequency, an angular spread between the first and second sectors being chosen so that the first main beam does not overlap the second main beam (¶¶100, 159, and 175-177; figure 18: Beam 3 630 in third sector at frequency F1, 610 and 630 not overlapping); and
steer a third main beam to a third sector of the plurality of sectors at a second frequency between the first sector and the second sector (¶¶100, 159, and 175-177; figure 18: Beam 2 620 in second sector at frequency F2B), a difference between the first frequency and the second frequency being chosen so that overlap between the third main beam and one of the first and second main beams does not result in interference (¶¶172, 175, and 177; figure 18: frequency F2B is chosen to be separated from F1 to avoid cross-beam interference),
wherein a beam width is selected that results in a narrowest beam width for which communication can be sustained with a given set of Wireless Devices (WDs) (¶¶68, 79, 89, 135, 174, and 178; figures 15, 16, and 18: 10 degrees is selected as the narrowest beam width that can support communication for the WDs).
Although Hong teaches “An advanced antenna…Wireless Devices (WDs),” Hong does not explicitly disclose “incrementally vary a…the coverage area”.
However, Trigui teaches a beam width is selected that results in a narrowest beam width for which communication can be sustained with a given set of Wireless Devices (WDs) (¶¶6-8, 10, 35, and 95; figure 4: perform adaptive beamforming to narrow the beam width to only cover the density of subscribers (environment density)),
incrementally vary a pointing angle of at least one of the beams based at least in part on density of the wireless devices (WDs) within the coverage area (¶¶6-8, 10, 35, and 95; figure 4; claim 6: perform adaptive beamforming to continuously adapt the shape for the coverage area by changing a pointing angle/direction as the environment/subscriber density changes).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Hong by including “incrementally vary a…the coverage area” as taught by Trigui because it provides Hong’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of reducing interference and congestion (Trigui, ¶¶8, 10; figure 4).
As to claim 26, claim 26 is rejected the same way as claim 25.
Claim(s) 6-9 and 18-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hong in view of Trigui as applied to claims 1 and 13 above, and further in view of Faxér et al. US 2018/0041908 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Faxér”). Note: Faxér was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 10 January 2023.
As to claim 6, Hong in view of Trigui teaches the network node of Claim 1.
Although Hong in view of Trigui teaches “The network node of Claim 1,” Hong in view of Trigui does not explicitly disclose “a distribution…the WDs”.
However, Faxér teaches a distribution of wireless devices (WDs) supported by one of the at least two beams is determined based at least in part on angles of arrivals of uplink signals from the WDs (¶¶61-62).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Hong in view of Trigui by including “a distribution…the WDs” as taught by Faxér because it provides Hong in view of Trigui’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of using UE statistics already known by the eNB to determine locations of UEs and how to efficiently serve the UEs with beams (Faxér, ¶¶61-66).
As to claim 7, Hong in view of Trigui teaches the network node of Claim 1.
Although Hong in view of Trigui teaches “The network node of Claim 1,” Hong in view of Trigui does not explicitly disclose “a distribution…the WDs”.
However, Faxér teaches a distribution of wireless devices (WDs) supported by one of the at least two beams is determined based at least in part on precoder matrix indicator (PMI) feedback of the WDs (¶¶61-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Hong in view of Trigui by including “a distribution…the WDs” as taught by Faxér because it provides Hong in view of Trigui’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of using UE statistics already known by the eNB to determine locations of UEs and how to efficiently serve the UEs with beams (Faxér, ¶¶61-66).
As to claim 8, Hong in view of Trigui teaches the network node of Claim 1.
Although Hong in view of Trigui teaches “The network node of Claim 1,” Hong in view of Trigui does not explicitly disclose “a distribution…the WDs”.
However, Faxér teaches a distribution of wireless devices (WDs) supported by one of the at least two beams is determined based at least in part on a number of radio resource control (RRC)-connected WDs (¶¶61-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Hong in view of Trigui by including “a distribution…the WDs” as taught by Faxér because it provides Hong in view of Trigui’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of using UE statistics already known by the eNB to determine locations of UEs and how to efficiently serve the UEs with beams (Faxér, ¶¶61-66).
As to claim 9, Hong in view of Trigui teaches the network node of Claim 1.
Although Hong in view of Trigui teaches “The network node of Claim 1,” Hong in view of Trigui does not explicitly disclose “at least one…devices (WDs)”.
However, Faxér teaches at least one of a beam width and a pointing angle is based at least in part on channel quality indicators (CQI) received from a plurality of wireless devices (WDs) (¶¶61-66).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Hong in view of Trigui by including “at least one…devices (WDs)” as taught by Faxér because it provides Hong in view of Trigui’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of using UE statistics already known by the eNB to determine locations of UEs and how to efficiently serve the UEs with beams (Faxér, ¶¶61-66).
As to claim 18, claim 18 is rejected the same way as claim 6.
As to claim 19, claim 19 is rejected the same way as claim 7.
As to claim 20, claim 20 is rejected the same way as claim 8.
As to claim 21, claim 21 is rejected the same way as claim 9.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm.
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) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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.
/JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469
Prosecution Insights