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
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1, 7, 10, 16, 19, 25 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al (US 2020/0322812 A1) in view of Frank (US 2025/0274199 A1).
Claim 1 (similarly Claims 10, 19 and 28). Shi shows a user equipment (UE) (fig. 2A: UE 110A/110B; fig. 4A: UE 110), comprising: one or more memories storing processor-executable code (fig. 4A: memory 406; [0217]); and one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories (fig. 4A: processor 404) and individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: receive, from a network entity (fig. 2A: base station 202), a plurality of beam-swept synchronization signals associated with a testing procedure for the UE ([0032]: there are scenarios that base station will direct the base station beam to follow the UE’s movement without change beam ID tracking the moving cars or people in moving training, or in test to characterize UE radio performance; [0060]: the base station transmits the beamformed signals by sweeping them simultaneously or successively); select a first beam pair from a plurality of beam pairs associated with the plurality of beam-swept synchronization signals, wherein the first beam pair corresponds to a first antenna module of the UE ([0048]: for the downlink beamforming, a best beam pair of one or more transmission beams of the base station and one or more reception beams of UE generated in various directions according to a structure of each of the UE and the base station should be selected and then a downlink beam tracking process in which both the base station and the UE recognize information on the beam pair should be performed); perform one or more free-space spherical coverage measurements of the first antenna module based at least in part on selecting the first beam pair ([0046]: the beam pair relationship is the pair relationship between the transmission beam and the reception beam, or the pair relationship between the spatial transmission filter and the spatial reception filter; [0066]: if the user equipment is capable of receiving a plurality of Tx beams from the base station or supporting a plurality of base station Tx-user equipment Rx beam pairs, the base station may select a beam, taking into account spatial multiplexing, diversity transmission through repeated transmission or simultaneous transmission), the one or more free-space spherical coverage measurements comprising at least one of an equivalent isotropic radiated power (EIRP) ([0076]: to characterize mobile device’s radio performance, EIRP/EIS distribution over spherical space (CDF) is used besides the TRP/TIS) or an effective isotropic sensitivity (EIS) ([0076]: to characterize mobile device’s radio performance, EIRP/EIS distribution over spherical space (CDF) is used besides the TRP/TIS); calculate one or more blockage-impaired spherical coverage metrics of the first antenna module based at least in part on the one or more free-space spherical coverage measurements and a blockage transformation associated with the first antenna module ([0044]: reception beamforming concentrates reception of radio waves in a particular direction to increase received signal sensitivity incident from the corresponding direction and excludes signals incident from directions other than the corresponding direction from the received signal to provide a gain in blocking an interference signal; [0084]: the memory (of the UE) could store software or firmware instructions executed by the processor(s) and data used to reduce or eliminate interference in incoming signals – interference, e.g. blockage-impair, must be calculated prior to process of reducing or eliminating them); calculate a predictive spherical coverage value of the UE in a blockage environment based at least in part on the one or more blockage-impaired spherical coverage metrics of the first antenna module and one or more second blockage-impaired spherical coverage metrics of one or more other antenna modules of the UE ([0104]: the UE predicts the orientation of the reception beam (the reception beam direction) in a UE fixed coordinate system based on a change in the UE orientation change (Δθ, Δφ); [0121]: the beam direction change relative to the UE may be angle change information of the reception beam wherein the beam direction change relative to the UE is determined, by estimating angular change from a prior established angular direction and determining an appropriate table entry defining reception beam parameters); and calculate a conformance metric for the UE based at least in part on the predictive spherical coverage value of the UE in the blockage environment satisfying a threshold ([0077]: in order to get the spherical coverage, the EIRP/EIS test can be performed, with either the UE rotating, or both the measurement antenna and the UE rotating; fig. 6A and [0098]: the mapping table comprises a mapping for each beam direction of the reception beam in UE coordinate and reception beam parameters of reception beam… each square may correspond to different coverage in elevation (θ) direction or in azimuth (φ) direction).Shi does not very expressly describe wherein the blockage transformation is based at least in part on a plurality of candidate body or hand positions of a user of the UE.Frank teaches feature of blockage transformation being based at least in part on a plurality of candidate body or hand positions of a user of a UE ([0022]: a significant issue with an FR2 device (e.g. a UE) is that the signals can easily be blocked by an obstruction in front of an antenna panel of the device and, thus, even though the EIRP of the best beam in the direction of a base station (e.g. gNB) may be very good, it may often be the case that this beam is blocked by the head, hand, or body of a user of the device, or by another object; see also [0095]).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the blockage transformation criteria as taught by Frank in the UE of Shi to reduce testing time to evaluate a communication device (e.g. a UE) for EIRP and EIS, as well as multi-panel transmission and/or multi-panel reception with one or more TRPs, and taking into consideration a second-best transmission and/or reception beam as an aspect of coverage reliability, mitigating when the best beam of a device for transmission and/or reception may be blocked for signal transmission and/or signal reception.
Claim 7 (similarly claims 16 and 25). Shi shows the UE of claim 1, wherein each of the one or more blockage-impaired spherical coverage metrics correspond to a respective portion of a spherical area surrounding the UE ([0060]: the base station manages a cell divided into one or more sectors as its service coverage area and forms multiple transmission/reception (Tx/Rx) beams BM1-BM7 using beamforming schemes).
---------- ---------- ----------
Claims 2, 3, 11, 12, 20, 21, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al in view of Frank and in further view of Haverkamp et al (US 2007/0262900 A1).
Claim 2 (similarly claims 11, 20 and 29). Shi, modified by Frank, shows the UE of claim 1; Shi, modified by Frank, does not expressly describe wherein, to calculate the predictive spherical coverage value of the UE in the blockage environment, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: perform an averaging of the one or more blockage-impaired spherical coverage metrics of the first antenna module and the one or more second blockage-impaired spherical coverage metrics of the one or more other antenna modules based at least in part on the plurality of candidate hand or body positions of the user.Haverkamp teaches features of: perform an averaging of one or more blockage-impaired spherical coverage metrics of a first antenna module ([0030]: it is also well established that testing of handheld devices in different user positions such as dialing position held in a phantom hand or call position next to a phantom head will result in a reduction of the average gain of a GPS antenna (dBi) when viewed from an overhead sky view plane) and the one or more second blockage-impaired spherical coverage metrics of the one or more other antenna modules based at least in part on the plurality of candidate hand or body positions of the user ([0030]: since gain in the direction of the body blockage may be reduced by 2-3 dB or more in certain positions since such direction will be an indirect path to receive satellite signals, it is intuitive that the average peak gain for antenna performance will lie in a direction away from the nearby body blockage).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the features as taught by Haverkamp in the predictive spherical coverage value calculation process of Shi, modified by Frank, to improve satellite acquisition by improving gain and an optimized split correlator search.
Claim 3 (similarly claims 12, 21 and 30). Shi, modified by Frank and Haverkamp, shows the UE of claim 2, wherein each candidate hand or body position of the plurality of candidate hand or body positions is indicative of whether the first antenna module and each of the one or more other antenna modules is in a blocked state (Haverkamp, [0030]: navigating inside of a car also can add on-average an extra 5-8 dB of signal attenuation to satellites not in direct line of sight view through one of the windows due to the vehicle roof creating signal blockage; [0033]: the term “peak antenna gain” can indicate the set of strongest signals received or best received for a particular antenna configuration, particularly as it relates to satellites in view for a device or alternatively as it relates to an orientation of the device relative to the satellites in view).
---------- ---------- ----------
Claims 4, 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al in view of Frank and Haverkamp et al, applied to claims 2, 11 and 20, and in further view of Moeglein et al (US 2013/0017840 A1).
Claim 4 (similarly claims 13 and 22). Shi, modified by Frank and Haverkamp, shows the UE of claim 2; Shi, modified by Frank and Haverkamp, does not expressly describe wherein: each candidate hand or body position of the plurality of candidate hand or body positions corresponds to a respective probability, and performing the averaging is based at least in part on the respective probability of each candidate hand or body position.Moeglein teaches features of: each candidate hand or body position of a plurality of candidate hand or body positions corresponds to a respective probability ([0018]: historical statistical information may also be expressed in any one of several forms including parameters associated with a size and type of a particular statistical distribution, an expected value an any particular form such as an average, mean, median, mode, min, max, range, or any similar form thereof wherein historical statistical information may also characterize a shape of a probability distribution such as Gaussian, exponential, Poisson, Rayleigh, etc., and may indicate parameters specifying or describing such a probability distribution), and performing averaging is based at least in part on the respective probability of each candidate hand or body position ([0018]: one or more probabilistic models associated with an ability to acquire signals from particular transmitters may be used for determining an approach for selecting signals to be searched for obtaining information for computing a position fix… a historical statistical model of this particular location may suggest to a mobile device to forego attempting to acquire SPS signals in favor of attempting to acquire signals for WiFi-based positioning).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the positions probability averaging features as taught by Moeglein in the body or hand position calculation process of Shi, modified by Frank and Haverkamp, to improve accuracy and confidence level of the predictive spherical coverage value of the UE in the blockage environment.
---------- ---------- ----------
Claims 8, 17 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al in view of Frank and in further view of Lim et al (US 2020/0266873 A1).
Claim 8 (similarly claims 17 and 26). Shi, modified by Frank, shows the UE of claim 1; Shi, modified by Frank, does not expressly describe wherein the one or more blockage-impaired spherical coverage metrics comprise at least one of a second EIRP, different from the EIRP, or a second EIS, different from the EIS.Lim teaches a second EIRP that is different from a first EIRP (figs. 12A and 12B; [0194]-[0196]: first EIRP and second EIRP).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply a second EIRP/EIS value as taught by Lim in the blockage-impaired spherical coverage metrics of Shi, modified by Frank, to improve accuracy requirement for a beam correspondence.
---------- ---------- ----------
Claims 9, 18 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shi et al in view of Frank and in further view of Karjalainen et al (US 2020/0336194 A1).
Claim 9 (similarly claims 18 and 27). Shi, modified by Frank, shows the UE of claim 1; Shi, modified by Frank, does not expressly describe wherein, to select the first beam pair, the one or more processors are individually or collectively operable to execute the code to cause the UE to: select the first beam pair based at least in part on the first beam pair having a relative highest average reference signal received power (RSRP) of the plurality of beam pairs.Karjalainen teaches feature of selecting a first beam pair based at least in part on the first beam pair having a relative highest average reference signal received power (RSRP) of a plurality of beam pairs ([0052]: a UE may determine an aggregated RSRP computed or calculated over each set of CSI-RS resources, for each pair, and then select the resource pair having the strongest aggregate (e.g. strongest/highest average) RSRP for the set of CSI-RS resources… the UE may select resource pair 2 to be reported via a joint quasi-colocation multiple-resource beam report).It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the beam pair selection feature as taught by Karjalainen in the UE of Shi, modified by Frank, to support much higher data rates than currently available in LTE.
========== ========== ==========
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10, 19 and 28 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 – see Frank.
---------- ---------- ----------
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 6, 14, 15, 23 and 24 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.
---------- ---------- ----------
Conclusion
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
PARK, US 2015/0245223 A1: wireless devices that may have proximity sensors for determining signal blocking quantities caused by, for example, the hand/body effects.
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 Xavier Szewai Wong whose telephone number is 571.270.1780. The examiner can normally be reached on 11:30 am - 8:30 pm Mon to Fri.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571.270.1215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571.273.8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/XAVIER S WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415 12th June 2026
Prosecution Insights