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 .
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. a. Certified copy of application JP2021061070 was received on 07/26/2023.
2. The present application is a national stage entry of PCT/JP2022/011174 filed 03/14/2022.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
3. Regarding the 35 USC § 112 rejection of claim 2, the Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered; the newly amended claim language overcomes the previously applied rejection, which has been withdrawn.
4. Regarding the 35 USC § 112 rejection of claims 3, 9, and 12, the Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The claims have been amended to recite “angles from the communication apparatus to a connected communication destination”. There are only two points here, which makes a line, rather than an angle. The reference point for the angle needs to be recited.
5. Regarding the prior art rejection of the independent claims, the Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the cited prior art (Orhan, US 20210028840 A1) does not disclose the newly amended claims. Specifically, the Applicant argues two limitations:
First, the Applicant argues that Orhan does not disclose selecting destinations so that an angle is not less thatn a predetermined angle. The Examiner disagrees, and points to Figs. 5 and 7 or Orhan, and the associated cited disclosures, which disclose (in the case of multiple UEs in the same sector--ie UEs within a predetermined angle), not serving some of the UEs. In other words, selecting destinations such that the angles are not too close.
Second the Applicant argues the newly added limitation “in order to reduce an impact of an environment on optical communication.” The Examiner notes that this is rejected because of 35 USC § 112(a/b) issues, and does not have any patentable weight, as noted below.
EXAMINER’S NOTE
6. The independent claims contain the phrase “in order to reduce an impact of an environment on optical communication.” The Examiner understands this limitation as a recitation of intended use, and gives this no patentable weight.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
7. Claims 1 – 3, 6, and 8 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has been amended to recite selecting communication destinations such that they are not too close together, in terms of the angular distance, in order to reduce interference. This would be a reasonable and valid idea for radio communications, except that the claims require this is for optical (ie laser) communication. There is no interference between lasers, so there would be no point to this. It is therefore unclear to the Examiner that the inventor had possession of such an invention at filing. The other independent claims have similar language, and are likewise rejected along with their dependent claims.
8. Claims 1 – 3, 6, and 8 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. See above for details.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
9. Claims 1 - 3, 6, and 8 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 1 recites “selecting… in order to reduce an impact of an environment on optical communication.” It is unclear precisely what is meant by reducing the impact of “an environment” The claims are therefore indefinite, and rejected.
10. Claims 3, 9, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 3 recites “a communication destination candidate is present in a range of predetermined angles from the communication apparatus to a connected communication destination”. This is unclear—angles between the apparatus, destination, and what other reference point? Without this information, simply stating “angles” is meaningless. Claims 9 and 12 have similarly problematic language.
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.
11. Claim(s) 1 – 2, 8, 10 – 11, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Orhan (US 20210028840 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Orhan discloses subject matter relating to beam steering. Specifically, Orhan discloses a communication apparatus (BS; see Fig. 39) comprising:
at least one transceiver that is configured to be capable of transmitting and receiving directional communication media (RF front end; see Fig. 39); and
at least one processor (processor; see Fig. 39),
the at least one processor carrying out:
a determination process for determining at least one communication destination with which to communicate by the at least one transceiver (beam and user scheduling process; see paragraph [0064])
in the determination process, in the case of determination of communication with a plurality of communication destinations, the at least one processor selecting the plurality of communication destinations so that an angle between the plurality of communication destinations as viewed from the communication apparatus is not less than a predetermined angle (in case of multiple closely grouped UEs in a single sector (i.e. within a certain angle), only one UE is served by a single beam; see paragraphs [0063 – 0064], [0066], and Figs. 5 and 7) in order to reduce an impact of an environment on optical communication.
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 13, Orhan discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Orhan further discloses wherein in the determination process, the at least one processor determines the at least one communication destination with reference to positional information of the at least one communication destination with which to communicate by the at least one transceiver, the positional information being obtained by scanning (in case of multiple closely grouped UEs in a single sector (i.e. with reference to positional information), only one UE is served by a single beam; see paragraphs [0063 – 0064], [0066], and Figs. 5 and 7; UE calculates position information using DoA and DoT (i.e. using scanning); see paragraphs [0094] and [0098])
Regarding claim 8, Orhan discloses a communication system comprising a plurality of communication apparatuses (see Fig. 1), wherein at least any two or more of the plurality of communication apparatuses each include:
at least one transceiver that is configured to be capable of transmitting and receiving directional communication media (RF front end; see Fig. 38); and
at least one processor (processor; see Fig. 38),
the at least one processor carrying out:
a determination process for determining at least one communication destination with which to communicate by the at least one transceiver (beam and user scheduling process; see paragraph [0064])
in the determination process, in the case of determination of communication with a plurality of communication destinations, the at least one processor selecting the plurality of communication destinations so that an angle between the plurality of communication destinations as viewed from a corresponding communication apparatus is not less than a predetermined angle (in case of multiple closely grouped UEs in a single sector (i.e. within a certain angle), only one UE is served by a single beam; see paragraphs [0063 – 0064], [0066], and Figs. 5 and 7) in order to reduce an impact of an environment on optical communication.
Regarding claim 11, Orhan discloses a communication method comprising determining at least one communication destination of a communication apparatus including at least one transceiver that is configured to be capable of transmitting and receiving directional communication media (beam and user scheduling process; see paragraph [0064]; apparatus with RF front end; see Figs. 38 – 39), wherein
in the determining,
in the case of determination of communication with a plurality of communication destinations, the plurality of communication destinations are selected so that an angle between the plurality of communication destinations as viewed from the communication apparatus is not less than a predetermined angle (in case of multiple closely grouped UEs in a single sector (i.e. within a certain angle), only one UE is served by a single beam; see paragraphs [0063 – 0064], [0066], and Figs. 5 and 7) in order to reduce an impact of an environment on optical communication.
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 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 STEPHEN STEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9825. The examiner can normally be reached M - R 08:00 - 16:00; F 08:00 - 12:00.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 5712723139. 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.
/S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights