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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 4/13/2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1, and 4-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takano, Hiroaki (JP 2019004277 A), hereinafter Takano, in view of Furuichi, Sho (WO 2019026375 A1), hereinafter Furuichi.
Re. Claims 1, 19, 20, Takano teaches a communication apparatus, comprising: a transmission unit configured to selectively transmit a plurality of beams (Fig. 12 11, Fig. 22); a reception unit configured to receive information (Fig. 22 810) on a use condition of the plurality of beams in at least one group, wherein the plurality of beams is divided into the at least one group, a group of the at least one group includes a set of beams of the plurality of beams (Pg. 7, Line 36 - the base station 100 according to the embodiment of the present disclosure forms a group including a plurality of beams), and a processing unit configured to control the use of the plurality of beams based on the use condition indicated by the received information (Fig. 12, & Pg. 8, Line 27 - a the base station 100 makes the time until the start of the next beam sweeping after the beam sweeping is shorter than the other beam groups. On the contrary, for the beam group 3 in which no terminal device 200 exists, the time until the start of the next beam sweeping is made longer than the other beam groups after the beam sweeping is completed).
However, Takano does not expressly teach wherein the received information indicates at least one of transmission power or availability of each beam of the set of beams, and the at least one of the transmission power or the availability of each beam of the set of beams is based on combined patterns of the set of beams
Yet, Furuichi explicitly teaches the received information indicates at least one of transmission power or availability of each beam of the set of beams, and the at least one of the transmission power or the availability of each beam of the set of beams is based on combined patterns of the set of beams (Pg. 8, Line 38 - The information regarding the beam accepted by the wireless node 300 is information including one or more combinations of information indicating an acceptable beam pattern and information indicating transmit power acceptable when using the beam pattern);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Furuichi to the teaching of Takano. The motivation for such would be in order to improve transmission by associating power with specific beam groups as Furuichi provides a means by which said association can be made (Pg. 8, Line 38, Furuichi). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 4, Takano and Furuichi teach Claim 1.
Additionally, Takano teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to control based on the combined beam pattern, use of the set of beams included in the group (Pg. 5, Line 5 - The transmission sweeping at this time may be a terminal-specific sweep pattern specially prepared for the terminal).
Re. Claim 5, Takano and Furuichi teach Claim 4.
Yet, Takano does not expressly teach further teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to: calculate at least one of interference power or a beam gain of the set of beams by the combined beam pattern given to a protection target through transmission of the set of beams in the combined beam pattern, and control, based on at least one of the calculated interference power or the calculated beam gain, the use of the set of beams included in the group.
However, Furuichi explicitly teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to: calculate at least one of interference power or a beam gain of the set of beams by the combined beam pattern given to a protection target through transmission of the set of beams in the combined beam pattern (Pg. 4, Line 19 - the maximum allowable transmission power of the radio node 20 of the secondary system is assumed that the radio node 20 of the secondary system transmits a beam in the direction of the radio node 10 of the primary system on the assumption that interference is the largest. Also, it is determined that the radio node 10 of the primary system is protected), and control, based on at least one of the calculated interference power or the calculated beam gain, the use of the set of beams included in the group (Pg. 4, Line 26 - the same maximum allowable transmission power is applied to beams in directions other than the direction of the radio node 10 of the primary system).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Furuichi to the teaching of Takano. The motivation for such would be as Takano provides a means of controlling a group of beams based on interference power (Furuichi, Pg. 4, Line 19). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 6, Takano and Furuichi teach Claim 4.
Yet, Takano does not expressly teach wherein the processing unit is further configured to control the use of the set of beams for the communication apparatus based on a condition that a total interference power from a plurality of communication apparatuses is equal to or smaller than an interference margin of the protection target and the plurality of communication apparatuses comprises the communication apparatus.
However, Furuichi explicitly teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to control the use of the set of beams for the communication apparatus based on a condition that a total interference power from a plurality of communication apparatuses is equal to or smaller than an interference margin of the protection target and the plurality of communication apparatuses comprises the communication apparatus (Pg. 13, Line 1 - the frequency management database 100 permits the wireless node 300 based on the geolocation information of the primary point of the primary system and the interference tolerance of the reference point, and the geolocation information of the wireless node 300, the antenna information, and the beam pattern information. Examiner interprets that “interference tolerance” requires the power to be less than or equal to the margin of tolerance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Furuichi to the teaching of Takano. The motivation for such would be as Takano provides a means of controlling a group of beams based on interference power (Furuichi, Pg. 4, Line 19). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 7, Takano and Furuichi teach Claim 4.
Yet, Takano does not expressly teach wherein the processing unit is further configured to: calculate at least one of a representative value of interference power or a representative value of a beam gain of the set of beams given to a protection target through transmission of the set of beams included in the group, and control use of the set of beams included in the group based on at least one of the calculated representative value of the interference power or the calculated representative value of the beam gain.
However, Furuichi explicitly teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to: calculate at least one of a representative value of interference power or a representative value of a beam gain of the set of beams given to a protection target through transmission of the set of beams included in the group (Pg. 4, Line 19 - the maximum allowable transmission power of the radio node 20 of the secondary system is assumed that the radio node 20 of the secondary system transmits a beam in the direction of the radio node 10 of the primary system on the assumption that interference is the largest. Also, it is determined that the radio node 10 of the primary system is protected), and control use of the set of beams included in the group based on at least one of the calculated representative value of the interference power or the calculated representative value of the beam gain (Pg. 4, Line 26 - the same maximum allowable transmission power is applied to beams in directions other than the direction of the radio node 10 of the primary system. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”) OR the representative value of the beam gain.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Furuichi to the teaching of Takano. The motivation for such would be as Takano provides a means of controlling a group of beams based on interference power (Furuichi, Pg. 4, Line 19). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 8, Takano and Furuichi teach Claim 7.
Additionally, Takano further teaches the processing unit is further configured to control the use of the set of beams for the communication apparatus (Pg. 8, Line 1 - The number of beams for each group may be different. Further, the base station 100 may configure a beam group with beams provided from a plurality of antenna panels).
Yet, Takano does not expressly teach wherein based on a condition that a total value of representative values of the interference power from the plurality of communication apparatuses is equal to or smaller than an interference margin of the protection target and the plurality of communication apparatuses comprises the communication apparatus.
However, Furuichi explicitly teaches wherein based on a condition that a total value of representative values of the interference power from the plurality of communication apparatuses is equal to or smaller than an interference margin of the protection target and the plurality of communication apparatuses comprises the communication apparatus (Pg. 13, Line 1 - the frequency management database 100 permits the wireless node 300 based on the geolocation information of the primary point of the primary system and the interference tolerance of the reference point, and the geolocation information of the wireless node 300, the antenna information, and the beam pattern information. Examiner interprets that “interference tolerance” requires the power to be less than or equal to the margin of tolerance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Furuichi to the teaching of Takano. The motivation for such would be as Takano provides a means of controlling a group of beams based on interference power (Furuichi, Pg. 13, Line 1). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 9, Takano and Furuichi teach Claim 1.
Additionally, Takano further teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to select a representative beam from among the set of beams (Pg. 9, Line 4 - Even if the base station 100 has a power difference for each group, the terminal device 200 selects a limited good beam and reports information about the good beam to the base station 100).
Yet, Takano does not expressly teach wherein the processing unit controls the use of the beam included in the group based on of interference power given to a protection target through transmission of the selected representative beam or a beam gain of the selected representative beam.
However, Furuichi explicitly teaches wherein the processing unit controls the use of the beam included in the group based on interference power given to a protection target through transmission of the selected representative beam or a beam gain of the selected representative beam (Pg. 13, Line 1 - the frequency management database 100 permits the wireless node 300 based on the geolocation information of the primary point of the primary system and the interference tolerance of the reference point, and the geolocation information of the wireless node 300, the antenna information, and the beam pattern information. Examiner interprets that “interference tolerance” requires the power to be less than or equal to the margin of tolerance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Furuichi to the teaching of Takano. The motivation for such would be as Takano provides a means of controlling a group of beams based on interference power (Furuichi, Pg. 13, Line 1). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 10, Takano and Furuichi teach Claim 9.
Yet, Takano does not expressly teach wherein the processing unit is further configured to control the use of the set of beams for the communication apparatus based on a condition that a total interference power from a plurality of communication apparatuses is equal to or smaller than an interference margin of the protection target and the plurality of communication apparatuses comprises the communication apparatus.
However, Furuichi explicitly teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to control the use of the set of beams for the communication apparatus based on a condition that a total interference power from a plurality of communication apparatuses is equal to or smaller than an interference margin of the protection target and the plurality of communication apparatuses comprises the communication apparatus (Pg. 13, Line 1 - the frequency management database 100 permits the wireless node 300 based on the geolocation information of the primary point of the primary system and the interference tolerance of the reference point, and the geolocation information of the wireless node 300, the antenna information, and the beam pattern information. Examiner interprets that “interference tolerance” requires the power to be less than or equal to the margin of tolerance).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the teaching of Furuichi to the teaching of Takano. The motivation for such would be as Takano provides a means of controlling a group of beams based on interference power (Furuichi, Pg. 13, Line 1). All of the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements, as claimed by known methods, and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention.
Re. Claim 11, Takano and Furuichi teach Claim 1.
Additionally, Takano further teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to divide the plurality of beams into the one or more groups on the basis of beam directions of the plurality of beams (Pg. 15, Line 16 - the terminal device 200 may generate a beam group including a plurality of directional beams).
Re. Claim 12, Takano and Furuichi teach Claim 1.
Additionally, Takano further teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to divide the plurality of beams into the at least one group based on at least one of interference power given to a protection target by the plurality of beams (Pg. 13, Line 16 - the base station 100 according to the present embodiment is for selecting a desired beam group from among a plurality of beam groups, and for evaluating a beam as an interference signal. Additionally, Examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features needs to be mapped because of the presence of “Or”) OR a beam gain of the plurality of beams.
Re. Claim 13, Takano and Furuichi teach Claim 1
Additionally, Takano further teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to divide the plurality of beams into the at least one group based on a direction range of each beam of the plurality of beams a plurality of direction ranges comprises the direction range, and the plurality of direction ranges corresponds to a plurality of groups (Fig. 12 & Pg. 8, Line 4 - FIG. 12 is an explanatory diagram showing the base station 100 that forms a group of a plurality of beams. In FIG. 12, three beam groups 1, 2, and 3 are shown. In the example shown in FIG. 12, the beam group 1 is composed of 13 beams, and the beam groups 2 and 3 are each composed of 3 beams. Examiner interprets that the location of the base station is used to dictate the groups being made out of the beams).
Re. Claim 14, Takano and Furuichi teach Claim 13.
Additionally, Takano further teaches, wherein the processing unit is further configured to; determine a division target range regarding a beam direction of a specific beam of the plurality of beams, based on the of motion areas of the plurality of beams, divide the division target range based on the determination of the division target range, and generate the plurality of direction ranges based on the division target range (Fig. 12, Examiner interprets that the selection of beams (labelled 1, 2 and 3 in the figure) is dependent on the location of the device (200) in relation to the base station (100) and the base station selects a group of beams in a range based on the location of the device relative to the beams).
Re. Claim 15, Takano and Furuichi teach Claim 14.
Additionally, Takano further teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to: determine priorities of the plurality of direction ranges based on information on the plurality of beams, and change a size of the plurality of direction ranges based on the determined priorities (Fig. 12 & Pg. 8, Line 4 - FIG. 12 is an explanatory diagram showing the base station 100 that forms a group of a plurality of beams. In FIG. 12, three beam groups 1, 2, and 3 are shown. In the example shown in FIG. 12, the beam group 1 is composed of 13 beams, and the beam groups 2 and 3 are each composed of 3 beams. Examiner interprets that the location of the base station is used to dictate the groups being made out of the beams. Examiner interprets that the information relating to the priorities of beams can be used as a parameter for making the beam groups outlined in Fig. 12).
Re. Claim 16, Takano and Furuichi teach Claim 14.
Additionally, Takano further teaches wherein the processing unit is further configured to change a size of the plurality of direction ranges based on a distribution density of beam directions of the plurality of beams (Fig. 12, Examiner interprets that the selection of beams (labelled 1, 2 and 3 in the figure) is dependent on the location of the device (200) in relation to the base station (100) and the base station selects a group of beams in a range based on the location of the device relative to the beams.)
Re. Claim 17, Takano and Furuichi teach Claim 1.
Additionally, Takano further teaches wherein comprising a transmission unit configured to transmit information indicating the transmission power for each group of the at least one group and information on a group to which the set of beams belongs to the communication apparatus (Figs. 10 and 22).
Re. Claim 18, Takano and Furuichi teach Claim 1.
Additionally, Takano further teaches wherein comprising a transmission unit configured to transmit information indicating whether the set of beams is available for the group and information on the group to which the set of beams belongs to the communication apparatus (Figs. 10 and 22).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 4-20, filed on 04/13/2026 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection. Applicant, in their argument regarding Claim 1 on Page 10 has stated that they have incorporated elements from Claims 2, 3 and 4 into the independent Claim 1, however in doing so have expanded the scope of the claims, which in turn allows examiner to amend the scope of his rejection. Applicant argues regarding Claim 1 on Page 12 of their response that Takano has not been shown to expressly or inherently describe “combin[ing] patterns of a set of beams, of the plurality of beams, of a group of the at least one group to generate a combined beam pattern”. Examiner in part, agrees with this interpretation of Takano has to cure this deficiency, has provided new reference Furuichi. Examiner expresses that the combination of Takano and Furuichi disclose all elements of the claimed language and are obvious to combine in light of one another. Further, regarding Claim 4, Takano is maintained for the rejection as Examiner finds that the reference, when taken in light of the respective disclosures of the references used in Claim 1, still discloses the remaining language of Claim 4. As such, Examiner has rejected using the same references previously provided, now under 35 U.S.C. § 103 and upholds the rejection under the new grounds of Takano and Furuichi.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shikida et al. (2023/0170970) - ¶0010-0016, ¶0108-0115
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 NOAH JAMES SUGDEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7406. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Thurs 9:00-6:00 ET, Fri 9:00-1:00 ET.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/N.J.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/KHALED M KASSIM/supervisory patent examiner, Art Unit 2475
Prosecution Insights