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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on 1/27/2026 and 2/24/2026 have been considered.
Response to Amendment
This office action has been changed in response to the amendment filed on 12/9/2025.
Claims 1 and 9 have been amended.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/9/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the Applicant’s argument that Sarkar fails to cure the deficiencies of Ginis, the Examiner respectfully disagrees as is mapped below.
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, 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 1-3, 8-18, 23-25, 28 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar et al. (US-2019/0268780 hereinafter, Sarkar) in view of Ginis et al. (US-2021/0289366 hereinafter, Ginnis).
Regarding claim 1, Sarkar teaches a method, comprising:
obtaining a two-dimensional (2D) outline of a building (Fig. 15 and Page 2 [0029]) and one or more three-dimensional (3D) views that correspond to one or more sides of the building; (Page 5 [0056])
collecting one or more external characteristics corresponding to the one or more sides of the building in which fixed wireless access is to be provided (Pages 4-5 [0050] “For MDUs, identify the total number of apartments in an MDU that can avail 5G coverage” from “high resolution 3 dimensional geographical information systems (GIS) data”, Fig. 7 [S310, No, S314, No, S316], Fig. 10 [S610] and Page 7 [0096, 0098 & 0101]), wherein the one or more external characteristics are based on information corresponding to a combination of the 2D outline with the one or more 3D views; (Fig. 15 i.e. side of the building having wireless coverage vs faded portions not having coverage, see Page 6 [0079])
estimating wireless coverage to the building based on locations of one or more base stations (Page 4 [0049] and Page 9 [0137]) within a vicinity of the building; (Fig. 5 [S100-S104] and Page 4 [0049]) and
assigning, to the external characteristics of the one or more sides of the building, respective wireless coverage qualification levels each selected from a set of qualification levels, based on the estimated wireless coverage and the information; (Page 4 [0049] “In some embodiments, the identifying of a percentage of a building having a level of wireless network coverage includes estimating segments of the building which receive wireless network coverage. In some embodiments, the identifying of a percentage of a building having a level of wireless network coverage includes calculating a ratio of a length of covered segments to a perimeter of the building” and claim 2 “wherein the level of wireless network coverage is one of a downlink throughput threshold and a signal to interference plus noise ratio, SINR, threshold”)
wherein a display of the 2D outline (Fig. 15) is modified to include the respective wireless coverage qualification levels assigned to the one or more sides of the building. (Fig. 8 [S400, S402, S404, No or Yes, S408 or S406] i.e. segment is colored based on coverage qualification or not and ultimately, Fig. 8 [S418 or S420] building will be considered to be covered by 5G or it will not)
Sarkar differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting estimating wireless coverage to the building based on locations of one or more base stations and one or more repeaters within vicinity of the building.
In an analogous art, Ginis teaches a method to design a wireless network (Abstract) that includes identifying customer rooftops (Page 5 [0088]), utilizing 3D information (Page 9 [0161]) to determine antenna locations visible by the base station (Fig. 9B [920-931]) that includes estimating wireless coverage to the building based on locations of one or more base stations (Fig. 1 [115], Fig. 17 [1710-1730] and Pages 7-8 [0112-0116] i.e. check all nearby base stations that can provide coverage) and one or more repeaters within a vicinity of the building. (Fig. 1 [110A-110G] and Pages 4-5 [0077])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Sarkar after modifying it to incorporate the ability to estimate wireless coverage to a building based on the locations of base stations and repeaters within the vicinity of a building of Ginis since in three-dimensional space, the best LOS connection for a building could be provided via any viewshed direction.
Regarding claim 2, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches wherein the estimated wireless coverage is estimated wireless coverage for 5G or higher generation wireless communications. (Sarkar Page 2 [0031] and Ginis Page 1 [0002, 0005 and 0011])
Regarding claim 3, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches wherein the estimated wireless coverage is estimated wireless coverage for millimeter-wave wireless communications. (Sarkar Page 2 [0031] and Ginis Page 1 [0006] and Page 5 [0079-0080])
Regarding claim 8, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches wherein the building is a multiple dwelling unit (MDU). (Sarkar Fig. 7 [S316] and Ginis Pages 4-5 [0077] “apartment/condo complexes”)
Regarding claim 9, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches associating the external characteristics of the one or more sides of the building (Sarkar Fig. 15 and Page 6 [0078-0079]) with individual dwellings within the multiple dwelling unit; (Sarkar Pages 4-5 [0050] “For MDUs, identify the total number of apartments in an MDU that can avail 5G coverage” from “high resolution 3 dimensional geographical information systems (GIS) data”, Fig. 7 [S310, No, S314, No, S316], Fig. 10 [S610] and Page 7 [0096, 0098 & 0101]) and
for a dwelling selected from the individual dwellings, determining a dwelling-specific service quality based on the wireless coverage qualification levels assigned to the external characteristics associated with the selected dwelling. (Sarkar Pages 4-5 [0050] “If the site acquisition can be accomplished as per the design (block S212) then the final design outputs (e.g., SNR, Throughputs, Households/site) are determined, via the processing circuitry 34, (block S214) and reported (block S216).” And Page 7 [0108])
Regarding claim 10, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches wherein the external characteristics associated with the selected dwelling include one or more windows associated with the selected dwelling. (Sarkar Page 6 [0080] “Note that in this disclosure, only a window location for CPE antenna placement has been used as that may be a preferred option owing to ease as well as lower cost of installation.” & Page 8 [0127-0128])
Regarding claim 11, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches wherein the determining of the dwelling-specific service quality includes identifying a preferred window selected from the one or more windows to provide fixed wireless access to the selected dwelling with the dwelling-specific service quality. (Sarkar Page 7 [0101-0108])
Regarding claim 12, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches recommending installation of customer premises equipment (CPE) at the preferred window. (Sarkar Page 6 [0080] “Note that in this disclosure, only a window location for CPE antenna placement has been used as that may be a preferred option owing to ease as well as lower cost of installation.”)
Regarding claim 13, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches wherein the building is a single dwelling unit (SDU). (Sarkar Fig. 7 [S318] and Ginis Pages 4-5 [0077] “single-family homes”)
Regarding claim 14, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches determining a service quality for the SDU based on the wireless coverage qualification levels assigned to the external characteristics of the SDU. (Sarkar Pages 4-5 [0050] “If the site acquisition can be accomplished as per the design (block S212) then the final design outputs (e.g., SNR, Throughputs, Households/site) are determined, via the processing circuitry 34, (block S214) and reported (block S216).”, Fig. 9 and Page 6 [0080-0082])
Regarding claim 15, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches wherein the external characteristics include one or more SDU features selected from one or more windows, one or more building corners, and one or more rooftop features. (Sarkar Page 6 [0080 & 0082])
Regarding claim 16, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches wherein the determining of the service quality includes identifying a preferred SDU feature selected from the one or more SDU features to provide fixed wireless access to the SDU with the service quality. (Sarkar Page 6 [0080 & 0082])
Regarding claim 17, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches recommending installation of customer premises equipment (CPE) at the preferred SDU feature. (Sarkar Pages 4-5 [0050] “The last stage is to identify, via the antenna locator unit 42, the best possible CPE location for different household types (SFU, MDU) in order to provide optimal coverage (block S218).”)
Regarding claim 18, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches wherein the assigning of the wireless coverage qualification levels includes assigning based on a selected type of customer premises equipment (CPE) to provide the wireless access. (Sarkar Page 5 [0074] “Using a tuned propagation model, throughput plots for uplink (UL) and downlink (DL) satisfying minimum coverage and capacity requirement for each distinct CPE location type in each household via rooftop, wall mount and indoor placement are output from the planning tool (mapping unit 40) (block S302).”)
Regarding claim 23, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches identifying suitable locations for base station and/or repeater placements within a vicinity of the building; (Sarkar Fig. 5 [S100], Page 4 [0049] and Ginis Fig. 18A and Page 9 [0155-0160]) and
recommending locations selected from the suitable locations for placements of at least some of the one or more base stations and/or the one or more repeaters to increase the estimated wireless coverage to the building. (Sarkar Fig. 5 [S104], Page 4 [0049] Ginis Figs. 18B and 19 and Page 10 [0164-0186])
Regarding claim 24, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches wherein the suitable locations include one or more locations selected from comm-zones on existing street light poles or utility poles, rights-of-way in which new poles could be installed, and strands. (Sarkar Page 5 [0055])
Regarding claim 25, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches wherein the recommending includes recommending locations to cost optimize an incremental increase in wireless coverage based on one or more of a cost to install a new base station, a cost to install a new repeater, and a cost to install a new pole or strand. (Sarkar Page 5 [0072 & 0074])
Regarding claim 28, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches installing customer premises equipment according to the recommending of claim 12. (Sarkar Page 8 [0128])
Regarding claim 29, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches a method comprising installing a base station or repeater at one of the recommended locations of claim 23. (Sarkar Page 8 [0127-0130] and Ginis Page 4 [0051])
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar in view of Ginis as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Nan (CN-108566646-A).
Regarding claim 19, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches the limitations of claim 19 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein the assigning of the wireless coverage qualification levels includes assigning based on angle of incidence for wireless communication signals from the one or more base stations and/or the one or more repeaters on customer premises equipment installed or installable on or in the building.
In an analogous art, Nan teaches a method and system for providing wireless coverage to a rail line (Abstract) that includes correlating angle of incidents of communication between a radio tower at varying heights and a mobile terminal through a window and what conditions result in poor wireless signal reception. (Fig. 1 and Page 4 “Angle for example, when the base station 15 antenna height H4 is small, the propagation direction of the wireless signal emitted by the high-speed train carriage window 13 plane is small, resulting in wireless signal reaches the terminal angle of incidence 13 α small, poor wireless signal quality so as to cause the terminal 13 received. For another example, when the rail line passes through the canyon, the height H7 is set two sides of the gorge 16 and higher position of the antenna from a reference plane of the base station 17 is a base station the base distance between the reference plane height of the H5 antenna from the base station with the base station 17 transmission direction of the wireless signal of the H6 and 17 of the height of the base, when the H7 and H3 of the difference is large, the base station 17 transmitted is small with the included angle between the plane of the high-speed train carriage window 13 β, will also cause the wireless signal reaches the terminal of the incident angle 14 is small. thereby causing terminal 14 received wireless signal quality is also poor.”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Sarkar in view of Ginis after modifying it to incorporate the ability to grade signal quality based on angle of incident of Nan since the angle of incident correlates to the angle of reflection, which can attenuate signal transmission.
Claims 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar in view of Ginis and Lilja (US-2022/0085866).
Regarding claim 20, Sarkar in view of Ginis teaches a determination for placement of an antenna at a customer’s premise in a fifth generation millimeter wave communication system (Abstract) that includes associating the external characteristics of the building with wireless RF quality metrics (Sarkar Fig. 14 and [0136]) including comparing window CPE locations with wall mounts and rooftop. (Sarkar Pages 8-9 [0136] and Ginis Page 5 [0080])
Sarkar in view of Ginis differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting assigning of the wireless coverage qualification levels including assigning based on a selected type of window for the building
In an analogous art, Lilja teaches a method and system for relaying wireless signals through a window or space divider (Page 1 [0003]) that includes recognizing that low-e glass windows provide significant signal attenuation when trying to pass wireless signals through them. (Page 1 [0006])
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Sarkar in view of Ginis after modifying it to incorporate the ability to assign wireless coverage qualification levels based on the type of windows in a building of Lilja since it enables selecting the best location to place a CPE.
Regarding claim 21, Sarkar in view of Ginis and Lilja teaches wherein the type of window is selected from a low-e glass window, a recessed low-e glass window, a single-paned glass window, a recessed single paned glass window, a double-paned glass window, or a recessed double-paned glass window. (Lilja Page 1 [0006] & Page 18 [0248])
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sarkar in view of Ginis and Lilja as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of Nan (CN-108566646-A).
Regarding claim 22, Sarkar in view of Ginis and Lilja teaches the limitations of claim 20 above, but differs from the claimed invention by not explicitly reciting wherein the assigning of the wireless coverage qualification levels includes assigning based on angle of incidence for wireless communication signals from the one or more base stations and/or the one or more repeaters on windows of the building.
In an analogous art, Nan teaches a method and system for providing wireless coverage to a rail line (Abstract) that includes correlating angle of incidents of communication between a radio tower at varying heights and a mobile terminal through a window and what conditions result in poor wireless signal reception. (Fig. 1 and Page 4 “Angle for example, when the base station 15 antenna height H4 is small, the propagation direction of the wireless signal emitted by the high-speed train carriage window 13 plane is small, resulting in wireless signal reaches the terminal angle of incidence 13 α small, poor wireless signal quality so as to cause the terminal 13 received. For another example, when the rail line passes through the canyon, the height H7 is set two sides of the gorge 16 and higher position of the antenna from a reference plane of the base station 17 is a base station the base distance between the reference plane height of the H5 antenna from the base station with the base station 17 transmission direction of the wireless signal of the H6 and 17 of the height of the base, when the H7 and H3 of the difference is large, the base station 17 transmitted is small with the included angle between the plane of the high-speed train carriage window 13 β, will also cause the wireless signal reaches the terminal of the incident angle 14 is small. thereby causing terminal 14 received wireless signal quality is also poor.”)
Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to be motivated to implement the invention of Sarkar in view of Ginis and Lilja after modifying it to incorporate the ability to grade signal quality based on angle of incident of Nan since the angle of incident correlates to the angle of reflection, which can attenuate signal transmission.
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 MATTHEW C SAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-8099. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30-5 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, Matthew Anderson can be reached at (571)272-4177. 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.
/Matthew C Sams/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2646