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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 05/26/2026 has been entered.
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application does not claim priority from any domestic or foreign applications.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-3, 10-11, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LIU et al. (US 20220264319 A1, hereinafter LIU), in view of Junttila et al. (US 20220131578 A1, hereinafter Junttila).
Regarding claim 1,
LIU teaches a beamforming system, comprising (in general, see fig. 7 and fig. 3 along with their respective paragraphs 95-107 and 90, see also fig. 10 for additional relevant information):
an antenna array comprising a plurality of antenna elements organized in a first number of rows and a second number of columns (LIU, see at least fig. 3 and para. 90, “...In the specific example of FIG. 3, the 2D directional AAS 300 may be composed of (R+1) rows, and (C+1) columns of antenna units 302, each of which includes a pair of cross-polarized antenna elements 304 a and 304 b...”),
and
a beamforming circuit configured to:
generate at least four processed streams each comprising a pair of data streams and processed to have a respective one of at least four phases (LIU, see at least para. 103 in view of fig. 12 and fig. 3, “...Step 7 (at 714): Control the base station (or the radio unit) to sweep the co-phasing angle Ø from 0 to 360 degrees...”, note that based on fig. 3 examiner interprets more than “three” polarized streams per row or per column can be produced);
and
provide the at least four processed streams to at least four of the first number of rows based on a predetermined feeding pattern to thereby cause the antenna array to simultaneously radiate a plurality of radio frequency (RF) beams each comprising the pair of data streams in a defined set of elevations (LIU, see at least para. 100 in view of fig. 3, “...Step 4 (at 708): Control the base station (or the radio unit) to sweep the elevation angle in a predefined range with a predefined step size...”).
LIU does not specifically teach (i) wherein the first number of rows is greater than or equal to four rows, and (ii) [at least four phases and] a respective one or at least four amplitudes.
Junttila teaches (i) wherein the first number of rows is greater than or equal to four rows (see at least fig. 2A/B/C, for one of many possible examples, fig. 2A has 5 rows), and (ii) [at least four phases and] a respective one or at least four amplitudes (see at least fig. 2A/B/C, for one of many possible examples, fig. 2C shows phases and corresponding amplitudes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Junttila into LIU for allowing the antenna systems according to embodiments of the present invention to provide improved antenna patterns and higher gains while using relatively inexpensive radios (para. 87).
Regarding claim 2, LIU in view of Junttila teaches claim 1.
LIU does not specifically teach the plurality of antenna elements is separated by an antenna spacing that is less than or greater than one-half wavelength.
Junttila teaches the plurality of antenna elements is separated by an antenna spacing that is less than or greater than one-half wavelength. (Junttila, see at least para. 120, “...transmit and receive RF signals through the antenna array 212. In such embodiments, the spacing between adjacent columns may be selected so that the distance between adjacent columns is close to 0.5 wavelengths in both operating frequency bands. For example, a spacing of 62 mm between adjacent columns corresponds to 0.47 wavelengths at 2.3 GHz and to 0.54 wavelengths at 2.6 GHz,...)
Therefore, it would have been obvious, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Junttila into LIU for allowing the antenna systems according to embodiments of the present invention to provide improved antenna patterns and higher gains while using relatively inexpensive radios (para. 87).
Regarding claim 3, LIU in view of Junttila teaches claim 1.
LIU further teaches the at least four processed streams are further processed to cause the antenna array to simultaneously radiate the plurality of RF beams in a defined set of azimuth angles. (LIU, see at least para. 100 in view of fig. 3, “...Step 2 (at 704): Control the base station (or the radio unit) to sweep a predefined range of azimuth angles...”)
Regarding claims 10 and 11, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 1 and 3, respectively, except each of these claims is in method claim format.
Regarding claims 17 and 18, these claims are rejected for the same reasoning as claims 1 and 3, respectively, except each of these claims is in wireless communication system claim format.
To be more specific, LIU in view of Junttila also teaches a same or similar wireless communication system comprising antenna array, and beamforming circuit (LIU, see at least fig. 2A/B), which are well known in the art and commonly used for providing and enabling robust and reliable data communication hardware and software.
Regarding claim 19, LIU in view of Junttila teaches claim 17.
LIU further teaches a digital routing unit coupled to the distribution unit; and a plurality of remote units coupled to the digital routing unit via a plurality of optical fiber-based communications mediums. (LIU, see at least fig. 2A/B along with fig. 1 and their respective paragraphs, at least 85-87)
Regarding claim 20, LIU in view of Junttila teaches claim 19.
LIU further teaches the digital routing unit comprises: an electrical-to-optical (E/O) converter configured to convert a plurality of downlink communications signals into a plurality of downlink optical communications signals, respectively; and an optical-to-electrical (O/E) converter configured to convert a plurality of uplink optical communications signals into a plurality of uplink communications signals, respectively; and the plurality of remote units each comprises: a respective O/E converter configured to convert a respective one of the plurality of downlink optical communications signals into a respective one of the plurality of downlink communications signals; and a respective E/O converter configured to convert a respective one of the plurality of uplink communications signals into a respective one of the plurality of uplink optical communications signals. (LIU, see at least fig. 2A/B along with fig. 1 and their respective paragraphs, at least 85-87)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/26/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding independent claims 1, 10, and 17, since applicant's amendment necessitated new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action, previous Office action's rejections are moot. Accordingly, corresponding dependent claims have also been rejected in this Office action.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following claims are allowable:
Claim 4 would be allowable if rewritten to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 5-9 would be allowable because each of these claims is directly or indirectly depending from claim 4.
Claim 12 would be allowable for the same reasoning as claim 4.
Claims 13-16 would be allowable because each of these claims is directly or indirectly depending from claim 12.
Reasons of allowability:
Regarding claim 4, although Xu teaches the plurality of antenna elements in the antenna array is organized into four rows and eight columns, Xu does not teach its beamforming circuit configured to operate in a first state in a specific way, and operate in a second state in another specific way. Hence combining Xu with LIU would not achieve a reasonable result. Other searched prior arts are also reviewed, examiner does not find these prior arts are directly or indirectly combinable. Therefore, claim 4 is allowable.
Regarding claim 12, this claim would be allowable for the same reasoning as claim 4.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEE F LAM whose telephone number is (571)270-7577. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-5pm. 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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.
/YEE F LAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights