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 Amendment
The Amendment filed 10/23/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 11, and 12 have been amended. Claims 1-12 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Main Argument
Applicant argues “Thus, although Osawa might suggest that the UE transmits information pertaining to specification of a beam used when the UE transmits a signal to the BS, Osawa neither teaches nor suggests that the UE transmits information pertaining to specification of a beam used when the BS transmits a signal to the UE. Therefore, Osawa fails to disclose or suggest the feature of ‘a beam used when the communication device transmits a signal to the partner device, determined by the partner device based on the wireless signal transmitted by the communication device,’ (emphasis added) as recited in amended claim 1.”
Reply
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
Paragraph [0093] of Osawa teaches a transmission beam that is determined based on a downlink measurement taken by a UE, and said beam is used for downlink transmission from the base station (communication device) to the UE (partner device).
Therefore, Osawa teaches the claimed features of “a beam used when the communication device transmits a signal to the partner device, determined by the partner device based on the wireless signal transmitted by the communication device.”
Second Argument
Applicant argues “Osawa is silent about (1) forming a second beam having a wider beam width than the first beam and (2) controlling, during communication with the partner device using the first beam, the communication unit to switch a beam to be used from the first beam to the second beam having the wider beam width than the first beam.” “For example, Mochizuki fails to disclose the above-noted features of "forming a second beam having a wider beam width than the first beam used when transmitting a signal to the partner device based on the information obtained; and a control unit configured to control, during communication with the partner device using the first beam, the communication unit to switch a beam to be used from the first beam to the second beam based on a first wireless quality in the partner device for a first wireless signal transmitted using the first beam and a second wireless quality in the partner device for a second wireless signal transmitted using a predetermined beam related to the second beam," (emphasis added) as recited in amended claim 1. Indeed, Mochizuki merely teaches switching a used beam from among a plurality of beams with substantially the same beam width (see, for example, the widths of the coverages 2403, 2404 and 2405 as shown in FIG. 26 of Mochizuki).
Therefore, because Osawa and Mochizuki, whether taken alone or in combination (and Applicant does not acquiesce in the asserted reasons for combining), fail to teach the above- noted features of amended claim 1, amended claim 1 and its dependent claims are patentable over the cited references.”
Reply
The argument is rendered moot because the limitation of “or by forming a second beam having a wider beam width than the first beam used when transmitting a signal to the partner device based on the information obtained;” is not relied upon for this rejection and is not required to be present due to the use of “or” between the two limitations. In other word, it is further limiting unselected option/limitation.
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.
Claims 1-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Osawa et al. (US 20200067581 A1), hereinafter Osawa, in view of Mochizuki et al. (US 20190021085 A1), hereinafter Mochizuki.
For claim 1,
Osawa teaches a communication device comprising:
one or more processors ([FIG. 12] and [0167], a processor); and
one or more memories that store a computer-readable instruction for causing, when executed by the one or more processors, the one or more processors to function as ([FIG. 12] and [0167], software stored in memory and executed by processor):
an estimation unit configured to estimate a state of a transmission path between the communication device and a partner device, using a wireless signal transmitted from the partner device ([FIG. 2], [0038] and [0003], channel estimation is conducted to derive path information based on information received from UE (terminal));
an obtaining unit configured to obtain information pertaining to specification of a beam used when the communication device transmits a signal to the partner device, determined by the partner device based on the wireless signal transmitted by the communication device ([0012], a receiving unit, and [0093], transmission beam is determined based on downlink measurement taken by UE, and said beam is used for downlink transmission from the base station to the UE);
a communication unit configured to communicate with the partner device by forming a first beam used when transmitting a signal to the partner device based on the state of the transmission path estimated, or by forming a second beam having a wider beam width than the first beam used when transmitting a signal to the partner device based on the information obtained ([0031], transmitter/receiver characteristics implies communication, [0039], [0059], and [0072], transmission beam based on path information formed by BS for transmitting to UE (terminal));
Osawa does not teach a control unit configured to control, during communication with the partner device using the first beam, the communication unit to switch a beam to be used from the first beam to the second beam based on a first wireless quality in the partner device for a first wireless signal transmitted using the first beam and a second wireless quality in the partner device for a second wireless signal transmitted using a predetermined beam related to the second beam.
However, Mochizuki teaches a control unit configured to control, during communication with the partner device using the first beam, the communication unit to switch a beam to be used from the first beam to the second beam based on a first wireless quality in the partner device for a first wireless signal transmitted using the first beam and a second wireless quality in the partner device for a second wireless signal transmitted using a predetermined beam related to the second beam ([FIG. 3], [0123], [0702], and [0792], control unit is used to switch from first beam to second beam based on report of measured beams and their qualities).
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 device of Osawa for communicating with a communication unit with the device of Mochizuki for controlling the communication unit to effectively switch between beams and reduce transmission downtime.
For claim 2, Osawa and Mochizuki teach claim 1.
Mochizuki further teaches wherein the control unit performs control so as to switch from the first beam to the second beam based on a difference between the first wireless quality and the second wireless quality dropping below a predetermined level ([0783] and [0792], beam is switched when reception quality or received power of reference signal degrade below a predetermined threshold).
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 device of Osawa for communicating with a communication unit with the device of Mochizuki for controlling the communication unit to effectively switch between beams and reduce transmission downtime.
For claim 3, Osawa and Mochizuki teach claim 1.
Mochizuki further teaches wherein the control unit performs control so as to switch from the first beam to the second beam based on the first wireless quality dropping below the second wireless quality ([0792], switch from beam with degraded reception quality to a beam with superior reception quality).
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 device of Osawa for communicating with a communication unit with the device of Mochizuki for controlling the communication unit to effectively switch between beams and reduce transmission downtime.
For claim 4, Osawa and Mochizuki teach claim 1.
Mochizuki further teaches wherein the control unit determines whether to switch the beam to be used from the first beam to the second beam based on a report pertaining to the first wireless quality and a report pertaining to the second wireless quality, the reports being received from the partner device by the communication unit ([FIGS. 9 and 10], DRAT is illustrated, [0782-0783], and [00792], UE transmits report for each beam measured, and BS determines whether or not to switch beams based on received measurement reports).
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 device of Osawa for communicating with a communication unit with the device of Mochizuki for controlling the communication unit to effectively switch between beams and reduce transmission downtime.
For claim 5, Osawa and Mochizuki teach claim 1.
Mochizuki further teaches wherein the control unit determines whether to switch the beam to be used from the first beam to the second beam based on a report generated based on the first wireless quality and the second wireless quality obtained from the partner device, the report being received from the partner device by the communication unit ([0782-0783], and [00792], UE transmits report for each beam measured, and BS determines whether or not to switch beams based on received measurement reports).
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 device of Osawa for communicating with a communication unit with the device of Mochizuki for controlling the communication unit to effectively switch between beams and reduce transmission downtime.
For claim 6, Osawa and Mochizuki teach claim 1.
Mochizuki further teaches wherein the first wireless signal includes a demodulation reference signal or a channel state information reference signal ([0014] and [0120], demodulation reference signal).
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 device of Osawa for communicating with a communication unit with the device of Mochizuki for controlling the communication unit to effectively switch between beams and reduce transmission downtime.
For claim 7, Osawa and Mochizuki teach claim 1.
Mochizuki further teaches wherein the second wireless signal includes a channel state information reference signal ([0781-0782] and [0014], base station notifies UE of settings for reporting beam measuring configuration information and CSI which would include the CSI-RS).
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 device of Osawa for communicating with a communication unit with the device of Mochizuki for controlling the communication unit to effectively switch between beams and reduce transmission downtime.
For claim 8, Osawa and Mochizuki teach claim 1.
Mochizuki further teaches wherein the communication device is a base station device in a cellular communication system, and the partner device is a terminal device in the cellular communication system ([FIG. 2], E-UTRAN is cellular communication system, and [Abstract], communication between base station and terminal device).
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 device of Osawa for communicating with a communication unit with the device of Mochizuki for controlling the communication unit to effectively switch between beams and reduce transmission downtime.
For claim 9, Osawa and Mochizuki teach claim 8.
Mochizuki further teaches wherein the estimation unit estimates the state of the transmission path between the communication device and the partner device based on a sounding reference signal (SRS) received from the terminal device ([0268-0270], terminal device sends SRS and SRS resources to base station and base station determines reception of transmission data based on SRS resources and timing of SPS.).
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 device of Osawa for communicating with a communication unit with the device of Mochizuki for controlling the communication unit to effectively switch between beams and reduce transmission downtime.
For claim 10, Osawa and Mochizuki teach claim 8.
Osawa further teaches wherein the obtaining unit obtains a PMI (Precoding Matrix Indicator) as the information pertaining to the specification of the beam used when the communication device transmits a signal to the partner device ([0084], BS instructs terminal device to transmit feedback about PMI, and BS uses this information to determine transmission beam.).
For claim 11,
Osawa teaches a communication method executed by a communication device, wherein:
the communication device is configured to communicate with a partner device by forming a first beam used when transmitting a signal to the partner device based on a state of a transmission path between the communication device and the partner device estimated using a wireless signal transmitted from the partner device ([0031], transmitter/receiver characteristics implies communication, [0039], [0059], and [0072], transmission beam based on path estimation for transmitting to UE (terminal)).
Osawa does not teach the communication method comprises performing control, during communication with the partner device using the first beam, such that a beam to be used is switched from the first beam to the second beam based on a first wireless quality in the partner device for a first wireless signal transmitted using the first beam and a second wireless quality in the partner device for a second wireless signal transmitted using a predetermined beam related to the second beam.
However, Mochizuki teaches the communication method comprises performing control, during communication with the partner device using the first beam, such that a beam to be used is switched from the first beam to the second beam based on a first wireless quality in the partner device for a first wireless signal transmitted using the first beam and a second wireless quality in the partner device for a second wireless signal transmitted using a predetermined beam related to the second beam ([FIG. 3], [0123], [0702], and [0792], control unit is used to switch from first beam to second beam based on report of measured beams and their qualities).
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 device of Osawa for communicating with a communication unit with the device of Mochizuki for controlling the communication unit to effectively switch between beams and reduce transmission downtime.
For claim 12,
It is rejected on the same basis as claim 11 with the additional limitation of a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium ([Osawa 0170], computer-readable storage medium).
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 Benjamin T. Ranew whose telephone number is (571)272-2746. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM EST. 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 at (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.
/BENJAMIN T. RANEW/ Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465