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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the multiple reception chains must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
All abbreviations, symbols, acronyms, functional designations, sigla, letter combinations, code names, initialisms, nicknames, mnemonic devices, project names, alphabetical contractions and general slang must be positively defined and identified in the claims.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
A statement of intended use, as the name suggests, describes a manner in which a claimed invention may be used, but does not limit the claim and need not be practiced. If the applicant wishes to limit the claims to an intended use, the claims should positively recite those features and make clear that they are limiting. Claims that use this sort of language do not clearly indicate which meaning is intended. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. M3 Systems, Inc. 157 F.3d 1340, 1348-49 (Fed. Cir. 1998), Ex parte Kearney, 2012 Pat. App. LEXIS 2675 at 1 (BPAI 2012), Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 12-19 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.
“A claim which describes the most crucial element in a ‘new’ combination in terms of what it will do, rather than in terms of its own physical characteristics or its arrangement in the new combination, is invalid as a violation of [the indefiniteness requirement].” Halliburton v. Walker, 329 U.S. 1 (1946). A purely functional claim language is not allowable unless done within the scope of 112(f). This general prohibition against the use of “purely functional claim language” (and the more specific Halliburton rule) has not been completely eliminated. Rather, “purely functional claim language” is now permissible but only under the conditions of 35 U.S.C. § 112(f), i.e., if its scope is limited to the corresponding structure, material, or act disclosed in the specification and equivalents thereof. Ex Parte Miyazaki, 89 USPQ2d 1207 (B.P.A.I. 2008). The claims describe the processing circuitry’s configuration only by function, not by structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 16-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0083679 (Lim, et al).
Lim, et al discloses an apparatus (figures 21 and 22) comprising processing circuitry (#2113) configured to initiate a first directional listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure comprising a directional clear channel access (CCA) procedure in a first direction and during the first LBT procedure, initiate a second LBT procedure comprising a directional CCA procedure in a second direction, note ¶18, 55, 138 and claim 15.
Lim, et al reveals claim 17, the second LBT procedure is initiated during a deferral period of the first CCA procedure, note ¶29.
Lim, et al divulges claim 18, second LBT procedure is aborted when the directional CCA procedure of the first LBT procedure is successful, note ¶5, 49, 59, 159, 164, etc., abstract.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0410187 (Yang, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0069927 (Abdelmonem, et al).
Yang, et al discloses an apparatus (figure 15) comprising processing circuitry (#202) configured to monitor for interference signals originating from each of multiple directions and select a first direction of the multiple directions to perform a directional listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure. The first direction is selected based on the interference signals originating from each of the multiple directions, ¶29, 72, 75-79, 147. Yang, et al does not disclose “using” multiple antennas. Abdelmonem, et al teaches the use of multiple antennas for the purpose of obtaining data regarding interference detected in a received communication signal, note ¶19. Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of multiple antennas, as taught by Abdelmonem, et al, in the apparatus of Yang, et al in order to perform polarization adjusting for one or more orthogonally-polarized element pairs of an antenna system such that an impact of the interference on the antenna system is minimized.
Claim 9, Yang, et al discloses the processing circuitry continuously monitors the multiple directions for the interference signals, note ¶29, 72, 75-79, etc.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0410187 (Yang, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0069927 (Abdelmonem, et al) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0199212 (Lin, et al).
Yang, et al in view of Abdelmonem, et al discloses all subject matter, note the above paragraphs, except for monitoring for the interference signals originating from each of the multiple directions comprises processing signals by multiple reception chains. Lim, et al teaches the use of monitoring for the interference signals originating from each of the multiple directions comprises processing signals by multiple reception chains for the purpose of distinguish between beam sweeping signals that are received from different transmitters, figure 5 and 13, ¶134, 137, 166-167. Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of monitoring for the interference signals originating from each of the multiple directions comprises processing signals by multiple reception chains for the purpose of distinguish between beam sweeping signals that are received from different transmitters, as taught by Lim, et al, in the apparatus of Yang, et al in view of Abdelmonem, et al in order to facilitate antenna beam alignment in multi-connection scenarios.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claim(s) 4 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0410187 (Yang, et al) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2022/0069927 (Abdelmonem, et al) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2018/0083679 (Lim, et al).
Yang, et al in view of Abdelmonem, et al discloses all subject matter, note the above paragraphs, except for determine a strength of each of the interference signals using a direction of arrival (DoA) estimation and the selection of the first direction is based on the strength of each of the interference signals. Lim, et al teaches the use of determining a strength of each of the interference signals using a direction of arrival (DoA) estimation and the selection of the first direction is based on the strength of each of the interference signals for the purpose of operating a full-duplex scheme by considering a direction-of-arrival (DoA) in a communication system supporting a beamforming scheme, note figure 12, ¶82, 175, 187. Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of determining a strength of each of the interference signals using a direction of arrival (DoA) estimation and the selection of the first direction is based on the strength of each of the interference signals for the purpose of operating a full-duplex scheme by considering a direction-of-arrival (DoA) in a communication system supporting a beamforming scheme, as taught by Lim, et al, in the apparatus of Yang, et al in view of Abdelmonem, et al in order to operating a full-duplex scheme by considering a channel rank in a communication system supporting a beamforming scheme.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0410187 (Yang, et al) in view of WO 2017/184865 (Convida Wireless, LLC).
Yang, et al discloses an apparatus (figure 15) comprising processing circuitry (#202) configured to monitor, interference signals originating from a first direction (¶29, 72, 75-79, 147). Determine, based on the monitoring in the first direction, whether interference signals are originating from a second direction and perform a directional listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure comprising a directional clear channel access (CCA) procedure in the second direction based on whether there are interference signals originating from the second direction (¶3, 133, 139). Yang, et al does not disclose “using” analog beamforming. Convida Wireless, LLC teaches the use of analog beamforming for the purpose of achieving additional gain can be an alternative in conjunction with digital precoding, ¶97, 126, 137, etc., figures 18, A,B, 19. Hence, it 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 to incorporate the use of analog beamforming for the purpose of achieving additional gain can be an alternative in conjunction with digital precoding, as taught by Convida Wireless, LLC, in the apparatus of Yang, et al, in order to cover different serving areas may be critical to cover the entire coverage areas within a serving cell.
The Examiner has cited particular columns and/or line/paragraphs numbers in the reference(s) applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. IN RE JUNG, No. 10-1019 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
Allowable Subject Matter
As allowable subject matter has been indicated, applicant's reply must either comply with all formal requirements or specifically traverse each requirement not complied with. See 37 CFR 1.111(b) and MPEP § 707.07(a).
Claims 6-8, 10, 11, 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.
Claims 13-15 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not disclose or make obvious the selection of the first direction is based on comparing the strength of each of the interference signals to a predetermined threshold. In combination with in an apparatus comprising processing circuitry configured to: monitor, using multiple antennas, for interference signals originating from each of multiple directions and select a first direction of the multiple directions to perform a directional listen-before-talk (LBT) procedure. The first direction is selected based on the interference signals originating from each of the multiple directions. Determine a strength of each of the interference signals using a direction of arrival (DoA) estimation.
Conclusion
If applicants wish to request for an interview, an "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form (PTOL-413A) should be submitted to the examiner prior to the interview in order to permit the examiner to prepare in advance for the interview and to focus on the issues to be discussed. This form should identify the participants of the interview, the proposed date of the interview, whether the interview will be personal, telephonic, or video conference, and should include a brief description of the issues to be discussed. A copy of the completed "Applicant Initiated Interview Request" form should be attached to the Interview Summary form, PTOL-413 at the completion of the interview and a copy should be given to applicant or applicant's representative.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WILLIAM D CUMMING whose telephone number is (571)272-7861. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 12 noon to 6pm.
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, Anthony S. Addy can be reached at (571) 272-7795. 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.
WILLIAM D. CUMMING
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2645
/WILLIAM D CUMMING/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645