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 .
Priorities and Examiner Remarks
This application does not claim priority from any domestic or foreign applications.
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 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.
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 Xu et al. (US 20160127003 A1, hereinafter Xu).
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 (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 (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 (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 differs from the claim, in that, it does not specifically disclose wherein the first number of rows is greater than or equal to four rows.
Xu, for example, from the similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first number of rows is greater than or equal to four rows (see at least fig. 7 and/or fig. 17 and their respective paragraphs, for one non-limiting example, fig. 7 has four rows).
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 Xu into the method of LIU for effectively maximizing system capacity.
Regarding claim 2, LIU in view of Xu teaches the plurality of antenna elements is separated by an antenna spacing that is less than or greater than one-half wavelength. (Xu, see at least para. 90, “...In one example, the integrated antenna array system 700 includes a spacing of d1=0.75λ, d2=1λ, and d3=2.5λ that is chosen so as to maximize system capacity...”)
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 Xu into the method of LIU for effectively maximizing system capacity.
Regarding claim 3, LIU in view of Xu 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 Xu 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 Xu 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 Xu 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 01/08/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner provides response in following sections.
Regarding independent claim 1, applicant argues that (applicant’s emphasis included, if any):
“Notably, LIU, alone or in combination with XU, fails to disclose "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;" 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," as claimed in amended claim 1. ...
...
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, "simultaneously radiate" a "plurality of RF beams" in "a defined set of elevations" involves concurrent beams, not a sequence of single-beam directions scanned over time. As a result, LIU's cited sweeping steps fail to disclose or suggest the claimed simultaneity. The Office Action's mapping to LIU's sweeping schedule does not identify any disclosure in LIU of (i) concurrent generation of at least four processed streams, (ii) each processed stream comprising a pair of data streams, (iii) each processed stream having a respective phase, and (iv) a predetermined feeding pattern providing those streams to at least four rows. Still further, LIU's Fig. 3 description of antenna units with "a pair of cross-polarized antenna elements 304a and 304b" (US20220264319A1, para. 90; Fig. 3) is a physical polarization arrangement and does not equate to a "pair of data streams" in each processed stream. LIU's co-phasing discussion concerns relative phase between polarizations, not two independent data streams per processed stream and per emitted beam. Indeed, the Office Action does not cite any passage in LIU that teaches a processed stream "comprising a pair of data streams." Moreover, the claim also includes that the processed streams are provided to "at least four of the first number of rows based on a predetermined feeding pattern." LIU's sweeping procedure and generic 2D array description do not disclose any predetermined row-wise feeding pattern mapping streams to rows. There is no identification of a pattern that assigns particular phased, paired-data processed streams to specific rows for simultaneous multi-beam formation across a defined set of elevations.”
(Remarks, page 11, 12, and 13)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. LIU in at least para. 103 in view of fig. 12 and fig. 3 discloses the process of fig. 7 controls the base station (or the radio unit) to sweep the co-phasing angle Ø from 0 to 360 degrees using beam elements of fig. 3. Note that in fig. 3, the beam elements have more than 3 rows and 3 columns each comprising polarized elements that each send out beamforming weights Wae 0 for one polarization (referred to as polarization #1) and ejØWae 0 for the other polarization (referred to as polarization #2). Hence, not only does LIU disclose the features of “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 also discloses (i) concurrent generation of at least four processed streams (e.g. beam elements has more than 3 rows and 3 columns), (ii) each processed stream comprising a pair of data streams (e.g. using polarized elements), (iii) each processed stream having a respective phase (e.g. beamforming weights), and (iv) a predetermined feeding pattern providing those streams to at least four rows (e.g. in one interpretation but not limited to “beam elements have more than 3 rows and 3 columns”).
For the argued features of “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 again in at least para. 100 in view of fig. 3 discloses that the process controls the base station (or the radio unit) to sweep the elevation angle in a predefined range with a predefined step size. Note that again in fig. 3, the beam elements have more than 3 rows and 3 columns each comprising polarized elements. These elements are predetermined feeding pattern and each send out beamforming weights Wae 0 for one polarization (referred to as polarization #1) and ejØWae 0 for the other polarization (referred to as polarization #2). Therefore, LIU alone or combined indeed teaches or suggests the feature of “"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;" as well as the features of "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”, recited in claim 1.
Further, applicant argues that (applicant’s emphasis included, if any):
“Xu fails to make up for the deficiencies of LIU in these regards. In particular, Xu primarily discusses integrated array physical layouts, symmetry around a baseband unit, trace matching, and example spacings and groupings. See Xu, e.g., Fig. 7; paragraphs [0071]- [0073]; Fig. 15; paragraphs [0090]-[0091]; Fig. 17; paragraph [0096]; Tables 2-3). The Office Action relies on Xu only to fill the ">= four rows" geometry. SeeOffice Action, Claim 1 mapping), however, Xu does not disclose: (1) generating at least four processed streams each comprising a pair of data streams with respective phases, (2) a predetermined feeding pattern of those processed streams to rows, or (3) simultaneous radiation of multiple beams in a defined set of elevations.” (Remarks, page. 13)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the argued features in this portion are disclosed by LIU. LIU teaches more than 3 rows and 3 columns elements, but does not explicitly mention a four rows system. Nonetheless, Xu clearly in its fig. 7 (or fig. 17) discloses that. The motivation is clear because Xu in at least para. 67 mentions that eNB 102 deploys a large number of active antenna elements in a two-dimensional plane can significantly increase system capacity.
Further, applicant argues that (applicant’s emphasis included, if any):
“The Office Action's rationale ("to effectively maximize system capacity") amounts to a generic KSR statement that does not provide reasoning for converting LIU's sequential sweep procedure into a system that concurrently generates and feeds four paired-data processed streams to specific rows in a predetermined feeding pattern to simultaneously radiate multiple beams. Such a modification would change LIU's principle of operation (i.e., from sequential measurement-sweep to concurrent multi-beam transmission with paired data streams and predetermined row mapping). Additionally, Xu's physical array disclosures do not supply the missing concurrent multi-stream generation, paired data nature, or feeding- pattern logic. Based on at least the foregoing, the combination lacks the required motivation and reasonable expectation of success to yield the claimed configuration. Thus, LIU, alone or in combination with XU, fails to disclose "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;" 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," as claimed in amended claim 1.” (Remarks, page. 13)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. As stated above, the argued features in this portion are disclosed by LIU. While LIU teaches more than 3 rows and 3 columns elements, LIU does not explicitly mention a four rows system. Hence, a combination of Xu is necessary. As such Xu clearly in its fig. 7 (or fig. 17) discloses such a system. As opposed of a generic KSR statement, the motivation is clearly defined by Xu in at least para. 67 such that a eNB 102 deploys a large number of active antenna elements in a two-dimensional plane can significantly increase system capacity.
Regarding independent claims 10 and 17, the traversal grounds are same or similar as those presented in claim 1 above. Therefore, in view of the response above, examiner also respectfully disagrees and has maintained the rejection as presented.
Accordingly, all pending dependent claims of the independent claims 1, 10, and 17, in view of the response above, the examiner has maintained the rejection as presented and believes all rejections are proper and should be sustained.
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
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 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