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 .
Status of the claims
Claims 1 – 20 were pending in the application.
With the amendment filed on October 07, 2025, Applicant have amended claims 1 – 15, and 17 – 20.
Claims 1 – 20 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed October 07, 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
Regarding independent claims, Applicant’s arguments directed toward newly amended limitations, which was not present in the previous rejection. Furthermore, newly made amendments have changed the scope of the claims. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made.
With respect all other claims the Applicant makes same argument as the argument applied to claim 1. Therefore, the same response applied to the argument with respect to independent claims above is applied here.
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 1 – 20 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.
Regarding claim 1, claim recite the limitation, “One or more processors comprising: circuitry to use one or more neural networks to identify one or more beam directions that, when used by one or more first devices to transmit two or more wireless signals, causes a reduction of interferences between the two or more wireless signals.” However, present specification does not disclose above mentioned limitations. Applicant alleges the support for the newly amended limitations in paragraphs 0065 and 0103. Present specification disclose that identifying the one or more beam directions based on information about another signal being transmitted or received by another device (see paragraph 0065). That is identifying the beam direction that reduce the interference between the signals from another device and the first device, not reducing the interference between the two transmitted signals from the first device. Present specification disclose improving the SINR of the transmit signals based on another signal from another device (see paragraph 0065 and 0103). Nowhere in the specification disclose that reducing the interference between the two or more transmitted wireless signals of the first device. Therefore, claims 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.
Similar scenario exists in claim 8 and 15.
Claims 2 – 7, 9 – 14, and 16 – 20 are inherently rejected as being depended on above rejected claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 5, 7, 8, 10, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al (US 20220045727 A1) in view of Abdelmonem (US 2024/0137104).
Regarding claim 1, Mehta et al teach one or more processors (see paragraph 0006) comprising: circuitry to use one or more neural networks to identify one or more beam directions that, when used by one or more first devices to transmit one or more wireless signals, (see paragraph 0006, “determine, using a neural network, a narrow beam based at least in part on the estimated position, the estimated direction, and the estimated transmit power”). Mehta does not expressly disclose transmitting two or more wireless signals using beamforming and reduce interference between the two mor more wireless signals. However, in analogous art, Abdelmonem teaches a beamforming apparatus transmitting two or more wireless signals in particular direction that causes to reduce the interference between the wireless signals (see figure 6A, and paragraph 0086). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to two or more signals corresponding direction. The motivation or suggestion to do so is to make efficient use of frequency resources by reducing interference by controlling transmit directions.
Regarding claim 2, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Mehta et al in view of Abdelmonem further teach wherein the circuitry to use the one or more neural networks to identify one or more transmit powers to be used by the one or more first devices to transmit the two or more wireless signals based, at least in part, on information about one or more beams used by one or more second devices (see Mehta et al paragraph 0006 “estimated transmit power”).
Regarding claim 3, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Mehta et al in view of Abdelmonem further teach wherein the circuitry to use the one or more neural networks to identify the one or more beam directions based, at least in part, on increasing a total data transmission rate of at least a portion of a wireless network (see Mehta et al paragraph 0059, 0061, 0096 “increases the signal strength of communications transmitted on the narrow beam, increases reliability of communications transmitted” intended use limitation).
Regarding claim 4, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Mehta et al in view of Abdelmonem further teach wherein information about one or more beams used by one or more second devices comprises information indicative of one or more beam directions of the one or more beams used by the one or more second devices (see Mehta et al paragraph 0072, 0085).
Regarding claim 5, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Mehta further in view of Abdelmonem teach wherein identification of the one or more beam directions is based, at least in part, on one or more beamforming parameters that comprise one or more complex values to be used to transmit the two or more wireless signals (see Mehta et al paragraph 0065 and 0072).
Regarding claim 7, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Mehta et al in view of Abdelmonem further teach wherein the circuitry to use the one or more neural networks to identify one or more first transmit powers of the two or more wireless signals based, at least in part, on one or more second transmit powers of one or more beams used by one or more second devices (see Mehta et al paragraph 0024, 0059 -0061, 0089).
Regarding claim 8, Mehta et al teach a system, comprising: one or more processors to use one or more neural networks to identify one or more beam directions that, when used by one or more first devices to transmit two or more wireless signals, causes a reduction of interference between the two or more wireless signals (see paragraph 0006, “determine, using a neural network, a narrow beam based at least in part on the estimated position, the estimated direction, and the estimated transmit power”).
Regarding claim 10, which inherits the limitations of claim 8, Mehta et al in view of Abdelmonem further teach , wherein information about one or more beams used by one or more second devices includes one or more beam directions and one or more transmit powers of the one or more beams used by the one or more second devices (see Mehta et al paragraph 0024, 0059 -0061, 0089).
Regarding claim 15, the claimed method including the features corresponds to subject matter mentioned above in the rejection of claim 8 is applicable hereto.
Regarding claim 17, which inherits the limitations of claim 15, the claimed method including the features corresponds to subject matter mentioned above in the rejection of claim 10 is applicable hereto.
Claim(s) 6, 9, 11 – 14, 16, and 18 – 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehta et al (US 20220045727 A1) in view of Ali et al (US 2022/0294511 A1).
Regarding claim 6, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Mehta et al in view of Abdelmonem teach hybrid beamforming (see Abdelmonem, figure 4A).Mehta in view of Abdelmonem does not expressly disclose hybrid beamforming based on one-hot vectors. However, in analogous art, Ali et al teach a processor using neural network to determine the beam directions generate one or more hybrid beamforming parameters are based, at least in part, on a representation of one or more phase values using one or more one-hot vectors (see figure 2, and 120 – 124). Therefore, it would have been obvious to ana ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a hybrid beamforming using one hot vector algorithm. The motivation or suggestion to do so is to greatly improve the performance of machine learning models.
Regarding claim 9 and 11, which inherits the limitations of claim 8, Mehta in view of Abdelmonem does not expressly disclose transmit the one or more wireless signals based, at least in part, on an expected signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (SINR) of the one or more wireless signals. However, transmit the one or more wireless signals based, at least in part, on an expected signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (SINR) of the one or more wireless signals is well known in the art. Further, Ali teach a beamforming apparatus wherein the one or more processors are to use the one or more neural networks to identify one or more transmit powers to be used by the one or more first devices to transmit the one or more wireless signals based, at least in part, on an expected signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (SINR) of the one or more wireless signals (see paragraph 0071, 0083 – 0085). Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use SINR to determine the beamforming parameter. The motivation or suggestion to do so is to accurately transmit the data.
Regarding claim 12 - 14, which inherits the limitations of claim 1, Mehta et al in view of Abdelmonem teach hybrid beamforming (see Abdelmonem, figure 4A).Mehta in view of Abdelmonem does not expressly disclose hybrid beamforming based on one-hot vectors. However, in analogous art, Ali et al teach a processor using neural network to determine the beam directions generate one or more hybrid beamforming parameters are based, at least in part, on a representation of one or more phase values using one or more one-hot vectors (see figure 2, and 120 – 124). Therefore, it would have been obvious to ana ordinary skilled in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a hybrid beamforming using one hot vector algorithm. The motivation or suggestion to do so is to greatly improve the performance of machine learning models.
Regarding claim 16 and 18, which inherits the limitations of claim 15, the claimed method including the features corresponds to subject matter mentioned above in the rejection of claim 9 and 11 is applicable hereto.
Regarding claim 19 and 20, which inherits the limitations of claim 15, the claimed method including the features corresponds to subject matter mentioned above in the rejection of claim 12 and 13 applicable hereto.
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 JAISON JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)272-6041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached at 571 272 3044. 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.
JAISON . JOSEPH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2633
/JAISON JOSEPH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633