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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 2/5/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-21 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4, 8-11, 14-15, 17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2018/228868 (hereinafter Fraunhofer) in view of US 2019/0281571 (hereinafter Ren).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 14 and 19, Fraunhofer teaches a method, comprising: broadcasting (page 11, lines 28-34: the PRS are broadcast signals included in the signal 102) coordinate information (the PRS are coordinate information, as well as the “information representing a position of the base station BS” in page 9, lines 29-31) of a transmit receive point (page 7, lines 12-13, actual position; page 9, lines 29-31, anchor point), the coordinate information relative to a predefined coordinate system (page 7, second paragraph, polar or geographic coordinate systems); and transmitting, to a user equipment, an indication of a beam direction of a physical channel, the indication employing the predefined coordinate system (page 7, second paragraph, DoA information may be provided to mobile station).
Fraunhofer does not explicitly teach after the transmitting the indication, transmitting or receiving the physical channel using the beam direction.
However, Ren teaches after the transmitting the indication, transmitting or receiving the physical channel using the beam direction (FIG. 2; [0052]: details Send first information; Send the TA information, as indication; In the beam direction, different physical signals or physical channels may be carried).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fraunhofer to incorporate the teachings of Ren and include after the transmitting the indication, transmitting or receiving the physical channel using the beam direction of Ren with Fraunhofer. Doing so would improve transmission efficiency (Ren, at paragraph [0015]).
Regarding claims 2, 10, 15 and 20, Fraunhofer teaches wherein the beam direction comprises a value representative of a zenith of an angle of arrival, a value representative of a zenith of an angle of departure, a value representative of an azimuth of an angle of arrival, or a value representative of an azimuth of an angle of departure (page 7, lines 13-28, polar and geographic coordinate systems, DoA; page 10, second paragraph makes reference to the horizontal and vertical angles, i.e. azimuth and zenith angles).
Regarding claims 4, 11 and 17, Fraunhofer teaches wherein the physical channel comprises a physical downlink control channel, a physical downlink shared channel, a physical uplink shared channel, a physical uplink control channel, an uplink pilot, a downlink pilot, an uplink reference signal, a downlink reference signal, an uplink measurement channel, or a downlink measurement channel (page 2, lines 29-30, PRS sequences are downlink signals that are defined for positing purposes and that are broadcast to all radio terminal within a cell, as downlink reference signal).
Regarding claims 8, Fraunhofer teaches transmitting the physical channel using the beam direction (page 8, 30-32; any signal sent by a base station is a physical, and is on a channel).
Claim 7 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraunhofer in view of Ren, further in view of US 2021/0314112 (hereinafter Balasubramanian).
Regarding claims 16, Fraunhofer does not explicitly teach broadcasting the predefined coordinate system.
However, Balasubramanian teaches broadcasting the predefined coordinate system ([0216]: details network may broadcast V.sub.i in sub-geographic region-i. For example, the eNB may broadcast V.sub.i in sub-geographic region-i, using a sub-geographic region specific group radio network identifier (GRNTI). The sub-geographic region specific GRNTI may provide a one-to-one mapping between the sub-geographic location and GRNTI. The sub-geographic region specific GRNI of one or more (e.g., all) regions may be broadcasted in SIBs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fraunhofer to incorporate the teachings of Balasubramanian and include broadcasting the predefined coordinate system of Balasubramanian with Fraunhofer. Doing so would be improving situational awareness (Balasubramanian, at paragraph [0101]).
Regarding claims 7, Fraunhofer does not explicitly teach wherein the broadcasting the coordinate information of the transmit receive point further comprises transmitting a system information block.
However, Balasubramanian teaches wherein the broadcasting the coordinate information of the transmit receive point further comprises transmitting a system information block ([0216]: details may be broadcasted in SIBs).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fraunhofer to incorporate the teachings of Balasubramanian and include wherein the broadcasting the coordinate information of the transmit receive point further comprises transmitting a system information block of Balasubramanian with Fraunhofer. Doing so would be improving situational awareness (Balasubramanian, at paragraph [0101]).
Claims 5-6, 12-13 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraunhofer in view of Ren, further in view of US 2023/0147613 (hereinafter Karjalainen).
Regarding claims 5, 12 and 18, Fraunhofer does not explicitly teach wherein the beam direction comprises differential coordinates relative to a reference beam direction.
However, Karjalainen teaches wherein the beam direction comprises differential coordinates relative to a reference beam direction ([0071]: details at least one positioning assistance measurement comprising an anchor node based angular difference (AAD) between the pair of uplink and/or downlink beam directions may be computed based on the positioning measurement configuration by each respective anchor node 602, 603… the positioning assistance measurements of the anchor nodes 602, 603 may be determined in a global coordinate system with respect to at least one relative global coordinate reference point comprising at least one of a compass north, a cartesian coordinate point or a polar coordinate point).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fraunhofer to incorporate the teachings of Karjalainen and include wherein the beam direction comprises differential coordinates relative to a reference beam direction of Karjalainen with Fraunhofer. Doing so would be improving positioning accuracy (Karjalainen, at paragraph [0055]).
Regarding claims 6 and 13, Fraunhofer does not explicitly teach wherein the reference beam direction comprises coordinates of a synchronization signal block beam direction, or coordinates of a sensing beam direction.
However, Karjalainen teaches wherein the reference beam direction comprises coordinates of a synchronization signal block beam direction, or coordinates of a sensing beam direction ([0075]: details positioning assistance measurements may be associated with at least one of reference signals, data or control. The positioning assistance measurements may be associated… a synchronization signal block (SSB)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fraunhofer to incorporate the teachings of Karjalainen and include wherein the reference beam direction comprises coordinates of a synchronization signal block beam direction, or coordinates of a sensing beam direction of Karjalainen with Fraunhofer. Doing so would be improving positioning accuracy (Karjalainen, at paragraph [0055]).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraunhofer in view of Ren, further in view of US 2019/0097712 (hereinafter Singh).
Regarding claim 21, Fraunhofer does not explicitly teach obtaining, through sensing, a location of the user equipment relative to the predefined coordinate system; and determining the beam direction based on the coordinate information of the transmit receive point and the location of the user equipment.
However, Singh teaches obtaining, through sensing, a location of the user equipment relative to the predefined coordinate system; and determining the beam direction based on the coordinate information of the transmit receive point and the location of the user equipment ([0104]: details in addition to location information gathered for the UEs, UE orientation information may also be gathered. UE orientation information may be used to normalize the beam direction reference coordinates so that UEs transmitting uplink signaling can correct select an appropriate beam direction relative to the fixed location of the eNB, rather than being relative to the body of the UE).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Fraunhofer to incorporate the teachings of Singh and include obtaining, through sensing, a location of the user equipment relative to the predefined coordinate system; and determining the beam direction based on the coordinate information of the transmit receive point and the location of the user equipment of Singh with Fraunhofer. Doing so would reduce latency (Singh, at paragraph [0081]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-2 and 4-21 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Farag (US 2022/0200680) details beam management after channel setup.
Raghavan (US 2019/0074854) signaling incorporating interference avoidance of beam nulling constraints for millimeter wave communication systems.
Koo (US 2020/0127907) details detecting interference of a beam.
Lin (US 2020/0374863) details location-based beam prediction using machine learning.
Elliott (US 11,283,508) details millimeter wave beam tracking and beam sweeping.
Godala (US 11,431,402) details reducing beam search space for selection of an optimal beam.
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 Jasper Kwoh whose telephone number is (408)918-7644. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday through Friday, 10am to 4pm Pacific.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/JASPER KWOH/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights