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 .
Remarks
The present Office Action is based upon the Applicant’s amendment filed on 08/10/2026. Claims 1-11, 13-23 are now pending in the present application. This action is made FINAL.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested:
“A Radio Propagation Environment Providing for A Propagation of A Wireless Signal Via A Path Component”.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 29 of page 1 of the current specification, replace “scenario Fig. 1b)” with --scenario; Fig. 1b-- after “MIMO,”;
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
Figures 1a to 1c should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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
Claim(s) 11 is/or objected to because of the following informality/informalities:
a) On line 3 of claim 11, replace “the” with --a-- before “beacon”;
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 22 and 23 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 22 recites, “wherein the device is configured for performing a beam alignment process in cooperation with two other distributed components for jointly forming a communication of the wireless communication scenario”; however, the current specification does not support the limitation(s).
Claim 23 recites, “wherein the device is configured for performing a beam alignment process in cooperation with two other distributed components for jointly forming a communication of the wireless communication scenario”; however, the current specification does not support the limitation(s).
Applicant is welcomed to point out to the portion(s) of the specification that provides support for the limitation(s).
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.
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) 22 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CAPORAL DEL BARRIO et al. US 20210235359 A1 (hereinafter Caporal) in view of Haija et al. US 20240405807 A1 (hereinafter Haija).
Regarding claim 22, Caporal discloses a device configured to operate in a wireless communication scenario comprising a radio propagation environment (FIG. 2 to FIG. 5, par. 0053 and 0061 for base station 52 and user device 54 in with propagation scenario with multipath and par. 0063, “In the system 50, a plurality of synchronisation symbol blocks (SSBs) are transmitted from the base station 52 to the user device 54 (e.g. using different beams of an antenna of the base station). Thus, different beams take different paths between the base station 52 and the user device 54, such that one or more paths are line of sight (LOS) and one or more paths are non-line of sight (NLOS) paths”, the device configured for identifying a path component of a wireless signal travelling through the radio propagation environment (FIG. 5 and FIG. 6, par. 0065, “where the user device 54 receives a plurality of synchronisation symbol blocks from the base station 52. In one example embodiment, 64 SSBs are sent, sequentially, in different directions (although, of course, many variants to such an arrangement are possible). The user device 54 may receive a subset of the transmitted blocks, with many being non-line of sight (NLOS) beams and perhaps one or a few being line of sight (LOS) beams Details of the SSBs received… ”); wherein the device is configured for receiving the wireless signal and an identifier and for deriving, based on the identifier, that the wireless signal was received via the path component for identifying the path component (FIG. 14, par. 0111, 0112 and 0116, “The response may identify the SSB identified in block 156 (e.g. by providing a beam index to the identified path). Alternatively, or in addition, the message 157 may include the delay correction factor or a corrected delay for the identified beam”).
However, Caporal fails to disclose wherein the device is configured for performing a beam alignment process in cooperation with two other distributed components for jointly forming a communication of the wireless communication scenario.
In the same field of endeavor, Haija discloses wherein the device is configured for performing a beam alignment process in cooperation with two other distributed components for jointly forming a communication of the wireless communication scenario (FIGs. 1, 5a-5b and 6a-6c, par. 0142, “a manner for configuring beams from different nodes such that the beams from the different nodes substantially align (overlap) at the RIS. When the beams substantially align, i.e. the beam spots align) this helps improve a total gain for a signal between the two nodes and efficiently utilize the RIS for multi-link communication, i.e. a link from a base station to the RIS and a link from the RIS to a UE.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of configuring beams from different nodes as taught by Haija to the beams with different paths between the base station and the user device as disclosed by Caporal for purpose of improving a total gain for a signal between the two nodes.
Regarding claim 23, Caporal discloses a device, e.g., a base station configured for operating in a wireless communication scenario, the device configured for selectively tagging a signal transmitted by the device when directing the signal along a predetermined path in the wireless communication scenario and with a tag that is associated with the path; so that the tag identifies the path (FIG. 14, for beam index for identifying paths; par. 0116-0118, “At message 157, a response to the request 151 is sent to the communication node 141. The response may identify the SSB identified in block 156 (e.g. by providing a beam index to the identified path)… At block 158, the communication node 141 makes use of the message 157. For example, the identified LOS path and/or the delay correction factor may be used to improve positioning of the user device 142”; par. 0028, “receiving an indicator (e.g. a beam index) and/or a delay correction factor of a line of sight path from a user device in response to said first enquiry.”).
In the same field of endeavor, Haija discloses wherein the device is configured for performing a beam alignment process in cooperation with two other distributed components for jointly forming a communication of the wireless communication scenario (FIGs. 1, 5a-5b and 6a-6c, par. 0142, “a manner for configuring beams from different nodes such that the beams from the different nodes substantially align (overlap) at the RIS. When the beams substantially align, i.e. the beam spots align) this helps improve a total gain for a signal between the two nodes and efficiently utilize the RIS for multi-link communication, i.e. a link from a base station to the RIS and a link from the RIS to a UE.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the method of configuring beams from different nodes as taught by Haija to the beams with different paths between the base station and the user device as disclosed by Caporal for purpose of improving a total gain for a signal between the two nodes.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 1-11 and 13-21 is/are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior arts of the record, Caporal fails to suggest, disclose or teach individually or in combination to render obvious limitation(s), “wherein the wireless communication scenario is configured for performing a beam alignment process by use of at least three distributed components for jointly forming a communication of the wireless communication scenario.” of independent claim 1.
Therefore, claims 1-11 and 13-21 are considered novel and non-obvious, and allowed.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 22 and 23 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 ALLAHYAR KASRAIA N whose telephone number is (571)270-1772. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 8:00 am - 5: 00 pm.
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, RAFAEL PEREZ-GUTIERREZ can be reached at (571)272-7915. 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.
/ALLAHYAR KASRAIA N/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2642
Prosecution Insights