DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the pending claims, 1-20, received 12 January 2026. Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 1-20 is as follows:
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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-8, 9-11, 14, 16-18 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Meyer et al (US 20230421241 A1, hereafter referred to as Meyer) in view of Crouch et al (WO 2016179650 A1, hereafter referred to as Crouch) in view of Xiao et al (US 20210011369 A1, hereafter referred to as Xiao).
Regarding claim 1, Meyers teaches a radio access network, comprising:
at least one radio node mounted at a first height relative to a ground and configured to radiate a plurality of radio frequency (RF) beams (Meyer [0063, 0077] teaches a plurality of different beams transmitted in different directions) each steered toward a respective one of a plurality of primary beam directions (Meyer [Fig 4] discloses a plurality of beams transmitted in different directions); and a plurality of reflector devices (Meyer [0062, 0066-0067] teaches one or more adjustable reflectors).
However, Meyer does not explicitly teach one of a plurality of beam directions intercepting the ground; each mounted at a second height lower than the first height relative to the ground and configured to intercept and redirect a respective one of the plurality of RF beams to a respective one of a plurality of secondary beam directions parallel to the ground, wherein at least one of the plurality of reflector devices is configured to shape its respective redirected RF beam to provide greater coverage across a horizontal plane parallel to the ground while reducing energy spread in a vertical plane perpendicular to the ground.
Crouch, in an analogous art, teaches one of a plurality of beam directions intercepting the ground (Crouch [Pg 16, 25-30] teaches undulating terrain interposed between a tower and user which diminishes or blocks transmission. Additionally, Crouch [Fig 6, Fig 4 and Fig 5] teaches a signal from the base station directed to intercept the ground);
each mounted at a second height lower than the first height relative to the ground (Crouch [Pg 17, 1-7] teaches a reflector dish located below a reflector dish receiving a downward signal such that the reflector dish is below the elevated reflector and cell tower which communicate an essentially horizontal beam) and configured to intercept and redirect a respective one of the plurality of RF beams to a respective one of a plurality of secondary beam directions parallel to the ground (Crouch [Pg 17, 1-7, Fig 6] teaches steering a received beam, from the cell tower, downwardly to a new focal point at the height of a user).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Meyer in view of Crouch in order to configure the plurality of reflector devices, as taught by Meyer, be mounted at a second height lower that the first height relative to the ground and configured to intercept and redirect a respective one of the plurality of RF beams to a respective one of a plurality of secondary beam directions parallel to the ground, as taught by Crouch.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to provide a cost-effective, low maintenance means to provide strong wireless signals in remote areas where signals are weak (Crouch [Pg 2, 5-15]), with a high degree of directivity (Crouch [Pg 10, 1-5]).
However, Meyers-Crouch does not explicitly teach wherein at least one of the plurality of reflector devices is configured to shape its respective redirected RF beam to provide greater coverage across a horizontal plane parallel to the ground while reducing energy spread in a vertical plane perpendicular to the ground.
Xiao, in an analogous art, teaches the functional concept wherein the reflector devices is configured to shape its respective redirected beam to provide greater coverage across a horizontal plane parallel to the ground while reducing energy spread in a vertical plane perpendicular to the ground (Xiao [0143] teaches a case wherein the beams reflected by the reflector are configured to have a small vertical angle, wherein when the vertical range is small the horizontal range, perpendicular to the vertical, becomes large with the horizontal range parallel to the ground and the vertical range perpendicular to the ground [0140]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Meyers-Crouch in view of Xiao in order to configure at least one the reflector devices which intercept and redirect one of the RF beams, as taught by Meyers-Couch, have a configuration by which the reflected beam is shaped to provide greater coverage across a horizontal plane parallel to the ground while reducing energy spread in a vertical plane perpendicular to the ground, as taught by Xiao.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to enable the recipient to have a large movement range within the reception angle while clearly receiving the corresponding reflected beam (Xiao [0140]).
Regarding claim 2, Meyers-Crouch-Xiao teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Meyers-Crouch-Xiao teaches the radio access network wherein each of the plurality of reflector devices is further configured to cause the respective one of the plurality of RF beams to be redirected with a broader beamwidth on a horizontal plane parallel to the ground and a narrower beamwidth on a vertical plane perpendicular to the ground (Xiao [0143] teaches a case wherein the beams reflected by the reflector are configured to have a small vertical angle, wherein when the vertical range is small the horizontal range, perpendicular to the vertical, becomes large with the horizontal range parallel to the ground and the vertical range perpendicular to the ground [0140]).
Regarding claim 6, Meyers-Crouch-Xiao teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Meyers-Crouch-Xiao teaches the radio access network wherein the plurality of reflector devices comprises a plurality of passive reflectors (Meyer [0075, 0185] teaches fixed and adjustable reflectors).
Regarding claim 7, Meyers-Crouch-Xiao teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Meyers-Crouch-Xiao teaches the radio access network wherein the plurality of reflector devices comprises a plurality of active reflectors (Meyer [0075, 0185] teaches fixed and adjustable reflectors).
Regarding claim 8, Meyers-Crouch-Xiao teaches the limitations of claim 1, as rejected above.
Additionally, Meyers-Crouch-Xiao teaches the radio access network wherein the plurality of reflector devices comprises a combination of passive reflectors and active reflectors (Meyer [0185]).
Regarding claim 9, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, claim 9 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 10, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 2.
Therefore, claim 10 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 2.
Regarding claims 11 and 14, they do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, claims 11 and 14 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 1.
Therefore, claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 1.
Regarding claim 17, Meyers-Crouch-Xiao teaches the limitations of claim 16, as rejected above.
Additionally, Meyers-Crouch-Xiao teaches the WCS further comprising an open radio access network (O-RAN) subsystem and a distributed communications system (DCS) each coupled to the service node (Meyer [Fig 2 and 0068-0069] teaches communication using multiple RATs including a control RAT and data transfer RAT according to 4G LTE and 5G protocols [0035]).
Regarding claim 18, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 2.
Therefore, claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 2.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 12-13, 15, 19-20 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 6-9, 11, 14, 16 and 17 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
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 SHEAN TOKUTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5145. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 630-430.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 5712727952. 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.
SHEAN TOKUTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2446
/SHEAN TOKUTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446