DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-8 have been examined and are pending.
Response to Amendment
2. In response to the amendments received in the Office on 11/13/2025, the Office acknowledges the current status of the claims: claims 1 and 8 have been amended, and no new matter appears to be included.
3. In response to the amendments received in the Office on 11/13/2025, the amendment to the specification has been entered. The new title of the invention is “A METHOD FOR WIRELESS COMMUNICATION BY REMOTELY CONTROLLING BEAMFORMING”.
Drawings
4. The drawings were received on 11/13/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Response to Arguments
5. Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 with respect to the rejections of claims 1-4 and 8 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0248534 A1 to Kuang et al. (hereinafter “Kuang”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2006/0079290 A1 to Seto et al. (hereinafter “Seto”) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner addresses each of Applicant’s concerns in the following response.
Applicant contends Kuang does not disclose or suggest “a centralized unit having a signal processing function transmits an optical signal having a form corresponding to a downstream radio signal to be transmitted by the communication function to a communication target radio unit which…communicates with an external communication device among two or more radio units having the communication function directly connected to the centralized unit via an optical fiber” (Remarks, pages 7-8). In support of this argument, Applicant includes Figure 1 of Kuang and Figure 1 of the invention to allege the two or more radio units in recited claim 1 are directly connected (via optical fiber) to the centralized unit and are operable to wirelessly communicate with external devices.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. The figures, in comparison and alone, do not meet the requirements of the claim language and should not be considered singularly in mapping to the limitations. However, as described in the Office action mailed 8/22/2025, Kuang discloses a centralized unit (Figure 1 – optical module of the OLT described in [0035-0040]) that is “among” a signal processing function (Figure 1 WDM element) and a communication function (Figure 1 – photoelectric Tx and Rx units), the communication function of two or more radio units fiber-optically and directly connected to the centralized unit (Figure 2 with [0041], and Figure 4 with [0039] and [0054] – the photoelectric Tx and Rx units (having the communication function operable to communicate in the uplink and downlink with external devices through an optical splitter) are directly coupled within the OLT unit to the WDM, directly, with fiber optic means (optical signals in uplink and downlink, either multiplexed or demultiplexed, respectively).
Examiner respectfully maintains the rejections. With exception to the units’ ability to wirelessly communicate with one or more external devices, Kuang is sufficient to read on the limitations.
In addition, Applicant contends Seto is similarly deficient in rejecting the limitation reciting “a centralized unit having a signal processing function transmits an optical signal having a form corresponding to a downstream radio signal to be transmitted by the communication function to a communication target radio unit which…communicates with an external communication device among two or more radio units having the communication function directly connected to the centralized unit via an optical fiber” (Remarks, page 10).
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Seto is not cited to disclose this feature. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Seto discloses performing beamforming control of a communication target radio unit ([0017-0018], [0041-0042], [0287-0288], [0313-0314]), and it therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the communication method of Kuang in view of the communication method of Seto to perform beamforming for the reasons of easily and precisely adjusting phase and amplitude of a transmitted signal (Seto: [0015]).
Examiner respectfully maintains the rejections.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
10. Claims 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2016/0248534 A1 to Kuang et al. (hereinafter “Kuang”), in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2006/0079290 A1 to Seto et al. (hereinafter “Seto”), and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0359780 A1 to Guan (hereinafter “Guan”).
Regarding Claim 1, Kuang discloses a wireless communication method wherein:
among a signal processing function (Kuang: Figure 1 – element WDM unit) and a communication function (Kuang: Figure 1 – elements photoelectric transmitter and receiver unit) provided by a wireless communication device (Kuang: Figure 1 – optical module of OLT; see also [0035-0040]), a centralized unit having a signal processing function transmits an optical signal having a form corresponding to a downstream radio signal to be transmitted by the communication function to a communication target radio unit (Kuang: Figure 1 – optical module of OLT; see also [0035-0040] describing the WDM unit operable to convert an electrical signal (received in the downstream) to an optical signal for transmission to the photoelectrical transmit and receive unit.) which…communicates with an external communication device among two or more radio units having the communication function connected to the centralized unit (Kuang: Figure 2 with [0041] and Figure 4 with [0054] – corresponds to sending the optical signal in the downstream to one or more ONUs from the OLT through an optical splitter.) via an optical fiber (Kuang: [0039], Figure 4 with [0054] – GPON includes optical cable lines in the downstream and upstream.);
the communication target radio unit communicates with the external communication device in accordance with control of the centralized unit (Kuang: Figures 2 and 4 illustrate the communication between the OLT (comprising the photoelectric transmit and receive units) and the one or more ONUs.).
Although Kuang discloses that the control unit is operable to control modulated and bias currents, as well as optical power (Kuang: [0048]), Kuang does not expressly perform beamforming.
However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Seto. Seto is similarly concerned with optical communications (Seto: [0004], [0009-0010]). Seto performs beamforming control of a communication target radio unit (Seto: [0017-0018], [0041-0042], [0287-0288], [0313-0314] – corresponds to performing beamforming at an array of antennas for directional control, further illustrated in Figures 29A – 29B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the communication method of Kuang in view of the communication method of Seto to perform beamforming for the reasons of easily and precisely adjusting phase and amplitude of a transmitted signal (Seto: [0015]).
Although Kuang discloses a centralized unit as part of a passive optical network (PON; Kuang: [0028], [0038-0039]), Kuang does not expressly disclose wirelessly communicating with external devices.
However, incorporating wireless communication in a PON system cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Guan. Guan is similarly concerned with fiber optic communications employed within a PON (Guan: [0001]). Guan discloses an OLT operable to wirelessly communicate with one or more external devices (Guan: [0014-0016] – corresponds to a PON comprising an optical line terminal (OLT) operable to communicate wirelessly with a plurality optical network units (ONU) connect to a plurality of end users.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the communication method of Kuang in view of the communication method of Guan to wirelessly communicate between optic-oriented devices for the reasons of reducing the cost of complexity of passive optical networks when incorporating radio over fiber signaling (Guan: [0011]).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Kuang, Seto, and Guan discloses the wireless communication method according to claim 1, wherein Kuang further discloses:
the centralized unit converts the downstream radio signal and the control signal into a plurality of optical signals and multiplexes the plurality of optical signals to generate the optical signals (Kuang: [0007] – the WDM unit performs wavelength division multiplexing on downstream optical signals.); and
the communication target radio unit demultiplexes the optical signal into a plurality of optical signals, and transmits the downstream radio signal obtained by conversion to the external communication device, on the basis of the control signal obtained by converting the plurality of optical signals into a plurality of analog electric signals (Kuang: [0045] – the WDM unit performs de-multiplexing on the one or more optical signals, and converts the optical signal into one or more photelectric signals.). Seto further discloses demultiplexing means in which an optical signal “…for dividing the output signal of the optical/electric converter 11 to plural sub-carrier signals, frequency converters (third frequency conversion means) 14a to 14c for converting the respective distributor outputs to the same frequency, feedback signal detector (feedback means) 163 for detecting transmitted feedback signal from the output signals of the frequency converters 14a to 14c…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the communication method of Kuang in view of the communication method of Seto to perform multiplexing/de-multiplexing for the reasons of easily and precisely adjusting phase and amplitude of a transmitted signal (Seto: [0015]).
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Kuang, Seto, and Guan discloses the wireless communication method according to claim 2, wherein Kuang further discloses the centralized unit converts the downstream radio signal and the control signal into a plurality of optical signals having different wavelengths and performs wavelength division multiplexing to generate the optical signal (Kuang: [0007] – the WDM unit performs wavelength division multiplexing on downstream optical signals such that when they are de-multiplexed, different wavelengths and rates are obtained from the wavelength multiplexed optical signals.).
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Kuang, Seto, and Guan discloses the wireless communication method according to claim 2, wherein Seto further discloses the centralized unit generates the optical signal by subcarrier-multiplexing a downstream radio signal and a control signal (Seto: [0020-0023] – corresponds to generating optical signals by sub-carrier multiplexing a plurality of received signals. See also [0073-0074] and [0200] describing one of the multiplexed signals is a control signal.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the communication method of Kuang in view of the communication method of Seto to perform sub-carrier multiplexing for the reasons of easily and precisely adjusting phase and amplitude of a transmitted signal (Seto: [0015]).
Claim 8, directed to an apparatus embodiment of claim 1, recites similar features as claim 1 and is therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim 1. Please see above rejection of claim 1. Kuang further discloses the apparatus comprising at least a centralized unit (Kuang: Figure 1, WDM unit) and two or more radio units (Kuang: Figure 1, photoelectric transmitter and receiver unit(s)).
Allowable Subject Matter
11. Claims 5-7 are 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.
Conclusion
12. 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.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV whose telephone number is (571)270-7163. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, R, F 5:00 AM-5:00 PM, W 5:00 AM-3:00 PM (EDT).
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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 H. ELLIOTT IV
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2474
/BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 January 13, 2026