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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/30/2026 have been fully considered. Regarding the prior art, the Yerramalli reference does not teach or suggest the sequence of selecting a first beam, selecting a second beam, and adjusting an energy detection threshold entirely based on information received in the beam configuration. Specifically, the claimed beam gains are claimed and disclosed as being indicated by the beam gain patterns which are received as part of the control signaling which indicates the bream configuration. Yerramalli measures the gain for the signals when making a determination of an energy detection threshold as apposed to using a gain value that was included in configuration information as claimed. Additionally, Yerramalli does not suggest the sequence of the last two limitations claimed. The 101 rejection is withdrawn in view of the final two limitations which make transmitting dependent on the claimed sensing. The claims are not found to be allowable, however, because written description support for the amendments could not be found in the originally filed disclosure. Regarding the 112(a) rejection of claims 3 and 27, the applicant’s amendments do not cover a scenario disclosed by the applicant and appear to cover an opposite relationship between the delta beam gain value and the EDT than what is disclosed. Regarding claims 10 and 37, as pointed out in the rejection, the equations relied upon in the disclosure compare two beams but the claims cover a scenario where more than two beams are compared. The rejection is pointing out that there is not a description of how the scenario that covers more than two beams is performed.
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 1-19, 25-27, and 31-38 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.
Written Description Issue #1
Claims 1 and 25 feature the following sequence of limitations:
sensing a channel using the second beam in the second pointing direction based at least in part on the adjusted energy detection threshold associated with the second beam; and
transmitting using the first beam in the first pointing direction based at least in part on the sensing indicating that an energy level of the channel does not exceed the adjusted energy detection threshold.
First, the disclosure does not specify that sensing a channel based at least in part on the adjusted energy detection threshold “in a second pointing direction” that is different than the pointing direction that defines the second beam gain that us used to determine the adjusted energy threshold. This detail does not appear to be described in the original disclosure. Second, the applicant did not disclose the sequence of sensing a channel using the second beam in the second pointing direction and then transmitting, in the manner claimed, based at least in part on the sensing “using the second beam in the second pointing direction”. The paragraphs that the applicant referenced as supporting claim amendments in their specification do not appear to describe these features and the Examiner could not find any other description of the details claimed in the applicant’s amendment.
Written Description Issue #2
Claims 3 and 27 feature the following limitation:
determining a delta beam gain value based at least in part on a difference between the second beam gain of the second beam in the first pointing direction and the first beam gain of the first beam in the first pointing direction, wherein adjusting the energy detection threshold is based at least in part on one or more of the baseline energy detection threshold or the delta beam gain value.
Paragraph 105, 108, 111, 114, 117, and 120 are the only description of the term “delta beam gain value” in the disclosure and these paragraphs merely state that “a delta beam gain may result based at least in part on the adjusted EDT”. There does not appear to be support for determining the delta gain value based on the claimed difference between the second beam gain and the first beam gain. The applicant’s disclosure is opposite what is claimed in the “wherein” clause because the in the disclosure the delta beam gain is a function of adjusted EDT but in the claim the relationship is opposite where the adjusted EDT is based on the delta beam gain value.
Written Description Issue #3
Claims 10 and 37 feature the following limitation:
wherein adjusting the energy detection threshold is based at least in part on the first beam in the first pointing direction, the second beam in the first pointing direction, and the third beam in the third pointing direction.
The applicant defines the adjusting of the of the energy detection threshold claimed in claims 1 and 25 in paragraph 70 using equations 1 and 2. Gs(angle*) reads on the second beam in the first direction and G* reads on the first beam in the first direction, as defined in paragraph 68. The applicant attempts to define equations 7 and 8 for claims 10 and 37 in paragraphs 73 and 74. EDT in this scenario is defined according to a min-i function applied to and EDT specific to the instance i and an ADJ function applied to the gain of the sensing beam in an angle of i and the gain of the ith beam. The applicant does not define the min-i function in equation 7. The applicant does not define where the EDT-i applied to the min-i function comes from. The applicant defines the ADJ function applied in equation 7 with equation 8. However, equation 8 relies on a minimum-I function applied to a ratio of the gain of the sensing beam in the angle of “I” over the gain of the transmitting beam “i” in the angle “I” (using definition of Gi* defined in paragraph 68). Neither equation 7 or 8 shows how the various instances of transmitting beams represented by each of i = 1, 2, … are applied together. Equations 7 and 8 only show an analysis of a sensing beam gain with a single transmitting beam and not how multiple transmitting beams would affect an energy detection threshold. Equations 9 and 10 appear to cover another embodiment for this but does not address the issue of how various instances of transmitting beams would be applied together. Sections 2161.01(I) and 2163.03(V) of the MPEP states that if the applicant claims a function without disclosing how the function is performed a written description issue should be considered. In this case, the applicant does not provide any description of how their min-i and ADJ functions are applied to more than two gain measurements.
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 1-19, 25-27, and 31-38 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.
Claims 1 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential structural cooperative relationships of elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the necessary structural connections. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted structural cooperative relationships are: The applicant is claiming sensing a channel using the second beam “in the second pointing direction” but the claim has not specifically defined “the second pointing direction” or how it is defined in relation to the “first pointing direction”. The only other reference to the second pointing direction is that the second beam is “associated with a second pointing direction” but this language does not clearly define a pointing direction that defines “the second pointing direction”.
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 DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
