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 with respect to claim(s) 1-3, 5, 8-9, 11-15, 17-22, 24, and 26 have been considered but are moot in view of a new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 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(s) 18 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Roy et al (US 10903898 B1).
Regarding Claim 18, Roy teaches a method performed by a network node (Col.7:lines 35-49, remote computer/satellite is a node) for connecting a wireless device (Col.7:lines 32-34, terminal 120) to a second satellite in a non-terrestrial network, NTN, (Col.6:lines 24-33, intended use but the node enables connection) wherein the wireless device employs a first beamforming matrix (Col.1:lines 51-55 and Col.6:lines 6-13, Phased array antennas must use 1st beamforming matrix/vectors to steer beams and achieve directionality, no patentable weight but must be true for phased array antennas) for directing a radio beam from an antenna array of the wireless device to a first satellite (Col.5:lines 42-45, first satellite 105), the method comprising , the method comprising: enabling transmission to the wireless device ephemeris data of the first and the second satellite (Col.7:lines 32-43); the enabling comprises: transmitting to the wireless device ephemeris data of the first and the second satellite (Col.7:lines 32-43).
Regarding the remaining limitations, the network node is not recited as performing the steps of determining the angular difference, calculating the rotation matrix, or using the matrix to communicate. Instead, the network node merely enables the wireless device to do so, typically by transmitting specific data. Under the BRI, only those steps that are positively recited as being performed by the network node are required by the claim and the steps recited for the wireless device (determining angular difference, calculating rotation matrix, multiplying matrices, and using the matrix to communicate) are not given patentable weight unless the claim language requires the network node to perform or unless those steps are functionally tied to the network node’s method. Thus, the steps performed by the wireless device are not given patentable weight; they are treated as intended use or a result of the network node’s enabling action.
Regarding Claim 26, Roy teaches the network node performing the method of Claim 18 and the node (Col.7:lines 35-49, remote computer/satellite is a node) configured to serve at least one cell in a non- terrestrial network (NTN) (Col.3:line 59-Col.4:line 7), the network node comprising: radio interface circuitry configured to communicate with wireless devices via the at least one cell (Col.5:lines 42-45); and processing circuitry operably coupled to the radio interface circuitry (Col.5:lines 42-45).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, 12, 19 and 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon (US6023242) and Yang (US 9967081) in further view of Marz (WO 0221721, see attached copy).
Regarding Claims 1 and 24, Dixon teaches a wireless device (Fig.2, earth station 201) connecting to second satellite in a non-terrestrial network, (NTN), (Col.4:lines 37-41 and Fig.2: 202 and 208, handover to 2nd satellite) wherein the wireless device employs a first beamforming matrix for directing a radio beam from an antenna array of the wireless device to a first satellite (Col.4:lines 37-41, Col.3:lines 61-67, and Fig.2, connects to 1st satellite. Phased array antennas must use 1st beamforming matrix/vectors to steer beams and achieve directionality), determining an angular difference between a direction towards the first satellite and a direction towards the second satellite (Fig.2; Col.3:lines 61-67; and Col.4:lines 37-41, determining a different direction to connect a second satellite is determining is an angular difference (e.g. a change is present)); generate a second beamforming matrix; and using the second beamforming matrix generated using the determined angular difference and the first beamforming matrix to communicate with the second satellite (Fig.2; Col.3:lines 61-67; and Col.4:lines 37-41, connects to a second satellite. Phased array antennas must use a 2nd beamforming matrix/vectors to steer beam and achieve directionality), while Dixon does obviously teach all the limitations addressed above, to more explicitly address the limitations the Yang reference is introduced to explicitly teach determining an angular difference between a direction towards the first satellite and a direction towards the second satellite; generate a second beamforming matrix; and using the second beamforming matrix generated using the determined angular difference and the first beamforming matrix to communicate with the second satellite .
Yang teaches using the angular difference between a first mobile (i.e. 1st direction) and second mobile (i.e. second direction) (Fig.4 and Col.10:lines 25-31, separation (e.g. azimuth angle) between the mobile station 42 and mobile station 44 with respect to the base station) to generate a second beamforming matrix (Fig.3:307, Fig.4, and Col.9:lines 61-67 and Col.10:lines 25-31); and using the second beamforming matrix generated using the determined angular difference and the first beamforming matrix to communicate with the second device (Col.10:lines 25-31 and Col.9:lines 61-67, connecting to the target device 44 using the second beamforming matrix W2 which was generated from the first beamforming matrix using at least the azimuth angle) to generate a rotation matrix (Col.9:lines 61-67 and Col.10:lines 25-31, mask causes second matrix to adjust based on separation angle), wherein prior to determining the rotation matrix, the wireless device determines an orientation of the antenna array relative to the positions of the satellites (Col.9:lines 61-67 and Col.10:lines 25-31, this must happen before the appropriate mask/rotation matrix is determined to know how to adjust).
Yangs teachings are directed to beamforming from a base station to target mobile devices but a skilled artisan recognizes that these concepts are applicable/transferrable to a system directed to beamforming from a UE to target satellites.
Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art, it would have been obvious to combine the invention of Dixon with the teachings of Yang such that a wireless device can use the determined ‘angular difference’ and ‘the first beamforming matrix’ to generate a second beamforming matrix by using a mask (i.e. rotation matrix); and using the second beamforming matrix to communicate with the second satellite to provide enhanced quality of service such that transmission to target devices can be performed with an optimized beam pattern in a way to maximize antenna gain towards the intended target. However, the combination of Dixon and Yang do not explicitly teach determining a rotation matrix from the angular difference, multiplying the first beamforming matrix with the rotation matrix to generate a second beamforming matrix.
Marz teaches it is well known in the art for a source station to transmit information in a particular direction (Pg.1:Description section lines 6-9, lines 21-22, data is transmitted from a source (i.e. BS) to a target (i.e. subscriber station by)) by determining a rotation matrix from the angular difference (Pg.2:line 37-Pg.3:line 3, givens rotation matrices), multiplying the first beamforming matrix with the rotation matrix to generate a second beamforming matrix (Pg.2: line 37-Pg.3:line 3, 1st beamforming matrix is multiplied by rotation matrix to generate the 2nd beamforming matrix. Skilled artisan knows W1=W2 x R). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art it would have been obvious to modify the combined invention of Dixon and Yang with the further teachings of Marz that teaches utilizing rotation matrices and multiplying it with the first matrix to generate a second matrix. By doing so an enhanced device is provided where each element of the Phased array antenna can be steered by changing the timing or phase of when each antenna element operates without having to physically move the entire transmitter.
Regarding Claim 3, Dixon and Yang further comprising determining the angular difference based on knowledge about the position of the first satellite and the position of the second satellite (Dixon: Col.3:lines 4-27) (Yang: Col.10:lines 20-31, position of the target devices 42 and 44 are known).
Regarding Claim 5, Dixon and Yang teaches the angular difference comprises a difference in an azimuth angle and a difference in an elevation angle between the first and the second satellite (Dixon: Col.lines 28-35) (Yang: Fig.2 and Col.10:lines 20-31).
Regarding Claim 12, Dixon teaches the wireless device acquires information about its own location (Col.2:lines 24-26 and Col.3:lines 50-51).
Regarding Claim 19, Dixon teaches a wireless device (Fig.2:203 and 204) configured to operate in a non-terrestrial network (NTN) (Fig.2), the wireless device comprising: radio interface circuitry configured to communicate with a network node via at least one cell (Col.1:lines 10-20 and Col.6:lines 44-50 and Fig.2); and processing circuitry operably coupled to the radio interface circuitry, whereby the processing circuitry and the radio interface circuitry are configured to perform the steps of claim 1 (Col.4:lines 37-41 and Fig.2).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon (US6023242), Yang (US 9967081), and Marz (WO 0221721) and in further view of Zhu et al (US 20220078726)
Regarding Claim 2, Dixon, Yang, and Marz do not explicity teach the wireless device switches connection from the first satellite to the second satellite by exchanging the first beamforming matrix with the second beamforming matrix to be applied to the antenna array.
Zhu teaches that it is well-known to switch/exchange a beamforming matrix for achieving a different spatial direction (Par.53). Therefore, to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to modify Dixon, Yang, and Marz with the teachings of Zhu such that switching connection from the first satellite to the second satellite is performed by switching/exchanging the first beamforming matrix with the second beamforming matrix to be applied to the antenna array to enable a quick exchange to ensure seamless communications is maintained.
8. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon (US6023242), Yang (US 9967081), and Marz (WO 0221721) in further view of Lin (US20190313391).
Regarding Claim 17, Dixon, Yang, and Marz teach determining the second beamforming matrix for second beam direction (Yang: Col.4:lines 37-41, Col.3:lines 61-67, and Fig.2), however Dixon, Yang, and Marz do not expressly teach determining an updated bandwidth part, BWP, to be used together with the second beam direction.
Lin teaches determining an updated bandwidth part, BWP, to be used for beam direction (Par.11). A skilled artisan recognizes that it would be obvious to modify the invention of Dixon and Park with the teachings of Lin such that the matrix, which is required for beamforming phased array antennas, would also utilize an updated bandwidth part, BWP, so that the appropriate resource would be used in determination of beam direction.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Dixon, Yang, and Marz with the teaching of Lin such that an enhanced system is provided which utilizes available resources to provide the best communication services possible.
9. Claims 13, 14, 20-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dixon (US6023242), Dixon (US6023242), Yang (US 9967081), Marz (WO 0221721) in further view of Applicants Admitted Prior Art (AAPA).
Regarding Claim 13, Dixon, Yang, and Marz do not teach the wireless device performs a search around the determined second beamforming matrix to determine a refined second beamforming matrix, and using the refined second beam forming matrix for configuring the transmitter and/or receiver.
The examiner takes AAPA that it is well known in the art for wireless device performs a search around the determined second beamforming matrix to determine a refined second beamforming matrix, and using the refined second beam forming matrix for configuring the transmitter and/or receiver.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Dixon, Yang, and Marz in further view of AAPA such that the device can account for changes in the real-world such that accurate steering can be performed to provide enhanced communications.
Regarding Claim 14, Dixon, Yang, and Marz do not teach wherein the wireless device comprises a first antenna panel and a second antenna panel, where the first beamforming matrix is a beamforming matrix associated to a first antenna panel and the second beamforming matrix is a beamforming matrix associated to the second antenna panel.
The examiner takes AAPA that it is well known in the art for a wireless device to have a first antenna panel and a second antenna panel, where the first beamforming matrix is a beamforming matrix associated to a first antenna panel and the second beamforming matrix is a beamforming matrix associated to the second antenna panel.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Dixon, Yang, and Marz in further view of AAPA such that the device can have multiple beams for each of the panels in different directions to provide enhanced communications which could perform handover such that seamless communication is provided due to movement, obstructions, and varying conditions.
Regarding Claim 20, Dixon, Yang, and Marz do not teach the wireless device comprises one or a plurality of sensors to support determining an orientation of the antenna plane.
The examiner takes AAPA that it is well known in the art for wireless device comprises one or a plurality of sensors to support determining an orientation of the antenna plane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Dixon, Yang, and Marz in further view of AAPA such that the device has these sensors so that it can determine the orientation of the antenna plane in order to precisely steer the beam toward the satellite for enhanced communications.
Regarding Claim 21, Dixon, Yang, and Marz do not teach the wireless device determining a vertical orientation of the antenna plane.
The examiner takes AAPA that it is well known in the art for wireless device to determine a vertical orientation of the antenna plane.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Dixon, Park, and Yang in further view of AAPA such that the device can determine vertical orientation of the antenna plane in order to compensate for UE tilt to be able to precisely steer the beam toward the satellite for enhanced communications.
Regarding Claim 22, Dixon, Yang, and Marz do not teach wireless device comprises a GNSS receiver to determine its position in space. The examiner takes AAPA that it is well known in the art for wireless device wireless device comprises a GNSS receiver to determine its position in space.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Dixon, Park, and Yang in further view of AAPA such that the device wireless device comprises a GNSS receiver to determine its position in space in order to precisely steer the beam toward the satellite for enhanced communications.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9, Claim 11, and Claim 15 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.
The limitation of Claim 6 which recites “determining a rotation matrix from the angular difference; and determining the second beamforming matrix by multiplying the first beamforming matrix with the rotation matrix wherein prior to determining the rotation matrix, the wireless device determines on orientation of the antenna array relative to the positions of the satellites.” is not taught by the prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WESLEY LEO KIM whose telephone number is (571)272-7867. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5:30 M-F.
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.
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.
/WESLEY L KIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2648