DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09/30/2025 has been entered and considered by Examiner. Claims 1 - 10 are presented for examination. This Action is made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is objected for not being descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6, 8, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by John Wilson et al. (US Pub. 20180287686 A1).
For claims 1, 9, and 10, John Wilson discloses a control apparatus that controls a communication with a plurality of wireless terminals (115) via a plurality of wireless apparatuses (antennas or antenna arrays) using a plurality of beams (Figs. 8 and 12) [0045-46, 0096, 0127],
wherein each of the plurality of wireless apparatuses form a plurality of beams (205a-205d or 315-330) and communicate with at least one of the plurality of wireless terminals [0045-47], and wherein the plurality of wireless apparatuses include a first wireless apparatus and a second wireless apparatus (multiple antennas or antenna arrays) [0045-47],
wherein the control apparatus comprises: at least one memory (Figs. 8 and 12) [0096, 0127] configured to store instructions; and
at least one processor, the at least one processor being configured to execute the instructions to:
calculate an index (reliability value/threshold) based on a first information about a success/failure of a communication with at least two of the plurality of wireless terminals (Fig. 8, It computes a reliability value/threshold (called an index) that shows how the different beams are related or connected to each other, using information about whether communications succeeded or failed based on the reliability value with at least two of the wireless devices 115) [0035-37, 0053-59], and
a second information indicating a combination pattern of a first beam (315) among the plurality of beams formed by the first wireless apparatus and a second beam (325) among the plurality of beams formed by the second wireless apparatus that are used for a communication whose success/failure is indicated by the first information (and also using information that describes which beams formed by the antennas/arrays were combined together during the communications that succeeded or failed based on the reliability value.) [0035-37, 0053-59], wherein the index indicates a relationship between the first beam and the second beam (reliability value/threshold can determine whether the first beam or the second beam meets the selection criteria) [0063-64]; and
select, from among the plurality of wireless terminals and the plurality of beams formed by the first wireless apparatus and the plurality of beams formed by the second wireless apparatus, a combination of at least one wireless terminal serving as a communication target and at least one beam used to communicate with the at least one wireless terminal, on the basis of the index (Then it chooses, from the many wireless devices and beams available, a specific pairing of at least one wireless device to talk to, and at least one beam formed by the antennas/arrays to use for talking to that device, and makes this choice based on the reliability value/threshold that it calculated earlier.) [0061-63, 0035, 0084].
Claim 9 differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art further discloses a control method that controls a communication with a plurality of wireless terminals using a plurality of beams, the control method comprising: All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
Claim 10 differs from claim 1 only by the additional recitation of the following limitation, which is also taught by the cited prior art. The cited prior art further discloses a non-transitory recording medium that records thereon a computer program that allows a computer to execute a control method that controls a communication with a plurality of wireless terminals using a plurality of beams, the control method including: All other identical limitations are rejected based on the same rationale as shown above.
For claim 2, John Wilson discloses the index indicates a degree of interference (SNR) of a communication using a second beam of the plurality of beams with respect to a communication using a first beam of the plurality of beams [0057, 0103].
For claim 3, John Wilson discloses the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to select, from among the plurality of wireless terminals and the plurality of beams, a combination of at least two wireless terminals serving as communication targets and at least two beams used to communicate with the at least two wireless terminals such that the index corresponding to the selected at least two beams is less than a predetermined threshold [0035-37, 0053-59, 0084].
For claim 4, John Wilson discloses the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to select the combination of the at least one wireless terminal and the at least one beam, by preferentially selecting a combination of a wireless terminal and a beam in which the corresponding index is low [0035-37, 0053-59].
For claim 5, John Wilson discloses the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to set a plurality of groups on the basis of at least one of a position at which the communication using the first beam is performed and a received quality of the first beam, and calculate the index corresponding to at least one of the plurality of groups [0035-37, 0053-59, 0084].
For claim 6, John Wilson discloses the at least one processor is configured to execute the instructions to set a plurality of groups on the basis of a received quality of the plurality of beams, and calculate the index corresponding to at least one of the plurality of groups [0035-37, 0053-59].
For claim 8, John Wilson discloses the control apparatus is connected to at least one wireless apparatus that forms the plurality of beams, and is configured to control a communication with the plurality of wireless terminals through the at least one wireless apparatus [0035-37, 0053-59].
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 of this title, 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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over John Wilson et al. (US Pub. 20180287686 A1) in view of Kountouris et al. (WO 2019161934 A1).
For claim 7, John Wilson discloses discloses all limitations this claim depended on.
But John Wilson discloses doesn’t explicitly disclose the following limitation taught by Kountouris.
Kountouris discloses the at least one processor being configured to execute the instructions to set the plurality of groups on the basis of a degree of similarity of the received quality of the plurality of beams (see abstract).
Since, all are analogous arts addressing beam or channel monitoring used in a mobile network; 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 combine the teachings of John Wilson with Kountouris to ensure identical channels/beams can be properly utilized for communication, thus, improving data transmission for the network.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 09/30/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the references failing to teach every element recited in the independent claims; the Examiner respectfully disagrees with the arguments by the Applicant. Even though, the Examiner acknowledges Applicant's invention may possess some novel features, the claims are written too broad that can be read on the current cited prior art(s). Further actions must be taken to explicitly claim those novel features of the current application.
With regards to the argument for the limitation “…wherein each of the plurality of wireless apparatuses form a plurality of beams and communicate with at least one of the plurality of wireless terminals, and wherein the plurality of wireless apparatuses include a first wireless apparatus and a second wireless apparatus…”, the Examiner asserts that John Wilson discloses multiple antennas or antenna arrays forming plurality of beams e.g. 205a-205d or 315-330.
“… That is, a base station 105 may use multiple antennas or antenna arrays to conduct beamforming operations for directional communications with a UE 115. Beamforming (which may also be referred to as spatial filtering or directional transmission) is a signal processing technique that may be used at a transmitter (e.g. a base station 105) to shape and/or steer an overall antenna beam in the direction of a target receiver (e.g. a UE 115) … Signals may be transmitted multiple times in different directions (e.g., each transmission may be beamformed differently). A mmW receiver (e.g., a UE 115) may try multiple beams (e.g., antenna subarrays) while receiving the synchronization signals. In some cases, the antennas of a base station 105 or a UE 115 may be located within one or more antenna arrays (e.g., panels), which may support beamforming or MIMO operation…” [0045-47].
With regards to the argument for the limitation “…a second information indicating a combination pattern of a first beam among the plurality of beams formed by the first wireless apparatus and a second beam among the plurality of beams formed by the second wireless apparatus that are used for a communication whose success/failure is indicated by the first information…”, the Examiner asserts that John Wilson discloses using information that describes which beams formed by the antennas/arrays were combined together during the communications that succeeded or failed based on the reliability value. See paragraphs [0035-37, 0053-59] for more detail.
With regards to the argument for the limitation “…the index indicates a relationship between the first beam and the second beam …”, the Examiner asserts that John Wilson discloses reliability value/threshold can determine whether the first beam or the second beam meets the selection criteria. See paragraphs [0063-64] for more detail.
ARGUMENT DOES NOT REPLACE EVIDENCE WHERE EVIDENCE IS
NECESSARY
The arguments made by the counsel cannot take the place of evidence in the record. The Applicant representative’s arguments for the obvious reason to combine the implicit and explicit teaching of the cited reference(s) failed to provide factual support to sustain the ground of arguments. The mere statement of disagreement of the prior art made by the Applicant’s representative cannot be served as evidence for support. Please see the following case law for detail:
In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465,43 USPQ2d 1362 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (“An assertion of what seems to follow from common experience is just attorney argument and not the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of obviousness.”). See MPEP § 716.01(c) for examples of attorney statements which are not evidence and which must be supported by an appropriate affidavit or declaration.
ARGUING AGAINST REFERENCES INDIVIDUALLY
One cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck and Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
As discussed above, it is apparent that the Applicant's cited limitations, elements, and arguments have already been disclosed by the relevant prior art(s) or were thoroughly addressed by the Examiner. Additionally, the current Office Action provides further elaboration on the explicit and implicit teachings of the aforementioned disclosed reference(s). It is important to note that any justifications and citations utilized in the preceding Office Action which were not contested by the Applicant shall be regarded as an implicit admission by the Applicant on the matter at hand.
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.
Inquiries
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the Examiner should be directed to PAKEE FANG whose telephone number is (571)270-3633. The Examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri 9:00AM-5:00PM.
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, Armouche, Hadi can be reached on 571-270-3618. 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.
/PAKEE FANG/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2409
Prosecution Insights