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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 05/12/2026.
In view of applicant’s amendment and arguments regarding objection to the drawings set forth in the previous office action, the objection is hereby withdrawn.
The applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in view of new ground(s) of rejections necessitated by the applicant’s amendment.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 6, 8, 13, 17 and 21 – 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200358482 (Coldrey) in view of US 20210064043 (Kulkarni), US 20240162960 (ÅSTRÖM) and further in view of information well known in the art as may be evidenced by one or more or US 20130223245 (Taoka) and/or US 20110313807 (Envarli)).
Regarding claims 6 and 8, Coldrey teaches “A method for determining an installation position of a radio-wave reflecting member (abstract: a preferred reflection/diffraction point (3:p) be selected towards which the first antenna (4a) and the second antenna (4b) are aligned.), comprising:
setting plural radio-wave propagation paths each with one reflection between a radio-wave transmission point in a target area (paragraph 0068: N candidate reflection/diffraction points 3:n are predefined. The pointer 1 indicates and aims first at the candidate reflection/diffraction point 3:1. In the next step, the antennas 4a, 4b are aligned towards the candidate reflection/diffraction point 3:1. This procedure will then be repeated until the last of the candidate reflection/diffraction points 3:N has been reached. In other words, each alignment of antennas toward a candidate reflection/diffraction point 3:n taken together represent “plural radio-wave propagation paths each with one reflection between a radio-wave transmission point”. Also see paragraphs 0055 – 0056) and a target reception point located in an area out of line-of-sight against the radio-wave transmission point (abstract and paragraph 0054: alignment of an antenna (4a, 4b) in a microwave radio link system in Non-Line-Of Sight (NLOS) conditions.)…”
estimating reception characteristics at the target reception point for each of the plural radio-wave propagation paths (Paragraph 0055: When the first and second antennas 4a, 4b are aligned towards the first candidate reflection/diffraction point 3:1, the system records the channel quality of the NLOS path between the two nodes A, B (“reception characteristics”) via the candidate reflection/diffraction point 3:1 at the node position. Paragraph 0056: For every candidate reflection/diffraction points 3:n (n=1 to N), the antennas 4a, 4b are aligned towards candidate reflection/diffraction points 3:n and the system records the channel quality of the NLOS path between the two nodes A, B via the candidate reflection/diffraction point 3:n at the node position. Paragraph 0071: Channel quality could be evaluated by measuring received signal strength, Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR), Signal to Noise and Interference Ratio (SNIR) Bit Error Rate (BER) or Packet Error Rate. Although Coldrey does not explicitly state that the channel quality is evaluated specifically “at the target reception point”, it is either implicit, or it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize recordation of the channel quality specifically at the location of the receiver since it is there where the signal reception will be performed.)…”
“…determining an installation position of a radio-wave reflecting member based on ones of the reception characteristics (paragraph 0068: When all predefined candidate reflection/diffraction points 3:1 to 3:N have been recorded, the system compares [to each other] the recorded channel qualities of the N positions and uses this information in order to decide which point 3:1 to 3:N shall be the preferred reflection/diffraction point 3:p. In general, the candidate reflection/diffraction point 3:n having the best channel quality will be selected. Paragraph 0059: if a candidate reflection/diffraction point 3:n is found having a channel quality between the first node (A) and the second node (B) via the candidate reflection/diffraction point 3:n is within a predefined range or above a prescribed threshold value it could be selected as the preferred reflection/diffraction point 3:p.)…”
Coldrey does not disclose that the plural radio-wave propagation paths are set for the target reception point in an area out of line-of-sight “based on map information of the target area.”
Kulkarni in paragraphs 0138 – 0139 teaches usage of a map to identify both LOS and NLOS areas. The LOS map is generated by performing a ray tracing process. The generated LOS map includes a list of all locations on the map with corresponding LOS anchors. That is, the generated LOS map indicates the regions with a LOS to an anchor and regions with NLOS to an anchor.
Therefore, since Coldrey does not disclose how the reception point is determined to be in Non-Line-Of Sight (NLOS) reception area, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Kulkarni method of using a map to identify both LOS and NLOS areas, in the system of Coldrey with predictable results and simply to fill in where Coldrey is silent and since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Coldrey does not disclose “determining a shape and the number of reflection beams of the radio-wave reflecting member based on a communication traffic amount by a terminal apparatus located in the area out of line-of-sight.”
ÅSTRÖM in FIG 1 and 2 with corresponding description in paragraphs 0002, 0007 and 0008 teaches a similar environment in which the signal path, corresponding to communication channel 140a, between network node 200 and the user equipment 300a, 300b is blocked by a first physical object 160a. To solve this problem, just like in Coldrey, an object 160b is provided with a passive meta-surface 120; the reflection of the signal via physical object 160b could be controlled such that the signal does reach the user equipment 300a, 300b via a non-line of sight signal paths corresponding to communication channel 140b in beams 150a and 150b. In FIG 1, communication channel 140b is illustrated in terms of two beams 150a and 150b; one beam 150a between the network node 200 and the meta-surface 120, and one beam 150b between the meta-surface 120 and the user equipment 300a, 300b. As may be seen, the beam 150b is a single beam having a wide shape. For maximizing spectral capacity in the communication between the node 200 and the user equipment 300a, 300b, the network node 200 might then adapt transmission parameters for optimized communication to each individual user equipment 300a, 300b. For such optimized communication it might be advantageous to communicate with the user equipment 300a, 300b in direction beams, one beam per user equipment 300a, 300b. This is illustrated in FIG. 2. The communications network 100b comprises the same components as communications network 100a but in FIG. 2 there is a separate beam 150c, 150d for each communication channel 140c, 140d along the path between the meta-surface 120 and each user equipment 300a, 300b. As may be seen, the two beams 150c, 150d have narrow shape. In other words, the system performs “determining a shape and the number of reflection beams of the radio-wave reflecting member based on a communication traffic amount by a terminal apparatus located in the area out of line-of-sight”, where the broadly recited “based on communication traffic amount” is disclosed in paragraph 0008 as maximization of spectral capacity in the communication between the node 200 and the user equipment 300a, 300b.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by ÅSTRÖM capability of varying the shape and number of reflection beams depending on the communication requirements, in the system of Coldrey. Doing so would have allowed to maximize spectral capacity of the communication channel (see ÅSTRÖM, paragraph 0008).
Coldrey in paragraph 0068 teaches using simple comparison between the recorded channel qualities of the N positions to decide which point 3:1 to 3:N shall be the preferred reflection/diffraction point 3:p. In general, the candidate reflection/diffraction point 3:n having the best channel quality will be selected. Alternatively, in paragraph 0059, if a candidate reflection/diffraction point 3:n is found having a channel quality between the first node (A) and the second node (B) via the candidate reflection/diffraction point 3:n is within a predefined range or above a prescribed threshold value it could be selected as the preferred reflection/diffraction point 3:p.
Thus, while Coldrey does not limit selection of the preferred reflection/diffraction point 3:p to any specific method, Coldrey does not disclose such method as “sorting the reception characteristics of the radio-wave propagation paths in descending order of reception characteristics at the target reception point; initializing a total value of reception characteristics to a first one of the reception characteristics at the target reception point; iteratively adding a next one of the reception characteristics at the target reception point to the total value of reception characteristics until the total value of reception characteristics becomes higher than a predetermined target quality”, and that it is specifically the “ones of the reception characteristics that are used to provide the total value of reception characteristics” that are used to determine the installation position of the reflecting member.
On the other side, selection methods based on the steps recited by the claim are well known in the art, as may be evidenced by Taoka. Indeed, Taoka teaches “sorting the … [numbers] in descending order … (Paragraph 0046: each eigenvalue σr are sorted in descending order); initializing a total value of … [the numbers] to a first one of the … [number]; iteratively adding a next one of the … [numbers] to the total value … (eigenvalues σr are added sequentially in descending order of the eigenvalue σr) until the total value … becomes higher than a predetermined target [value] (…and the number of added eigenvalues σr at the point at which the sum is a threshold or more)”, and the resultant operation is “based on ones of the … [numbers] that are used to provide the total value (the number of added eigenvalues σr at the point at which the sum is a threshold or more may be the number of DFT codebooks).”
Additionally or alternatively, this selection method is also disclosed by Envarli. Indeed, Envarli teaches “sorting the … [numbers] in descending order … (Paragraph 0095: Initially, as indicated at block 810, all advertiser campaigns are sorted by their impression goals in descending order); initializing a total value of … [the numbers] to a first one of the … [number]; iteratively adding a next one of the … [numbers] to the total value … (Next, the impression goals are added together, beginning with the demand having the highest impression volume goal and working through the list in descending order, as indicated at block 814…) until the total value … becomes higher than a predetermined target [value] (…until the collective impression volume goal total reaches or exceeds a pre-defined threshold fraction or percentage of the total goal impression volume)”, and the resultant operation is “based on ones of the … [numbers] that are used to provide the total value (The demand nodes associated with impression volume goals that were utilized (i.e., those having impression volume goals that were added together) are considered the "head" or "non-tail" demand nodes).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize well known in the art selection method, as may be evidenced by Taoka and/or Envarli, in the system of Coldrey by applying it to the selection of the preferred reflection/diffraction point 3:p instead of the methods disclosed by Coldrey simply as design choice with predictable results and would have been merely a replacement of one selection method with another also well-known in the art since the court stated in KSR, "when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740 (2007) (citing United States v. Adams, 383 U.S. 39, 50-51 (1966)).
Regarding claim 1, this claim is for an apparatus performing the method claimed in claim 6. It was shown above with respect to rejection of claim 1 that the combined disclosure of Coldrey, Kulkarni and ÅSTRÖM with information well known in the art as may be evidenced by one or more of (Taoka and/or Envarli) teaches or fairly suggests all steps of the method of claim 6. Therefore, claim 1 is rejected because of the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 because they have similar limitations. Claim 1 additionally claims “a propagation-path setting section”, “a reception-characteristics estimating section”, “an installation-position determining section” and “a reflection-beam determining section”. Although Coldrey, Kulkarni and ÅSTRÖM do not explicitly disclose these functional units, Coldrey is explicit in paragraph 0012 that the alignment of the antennas is performed by automatic adjustment as well as the measurements and recordings of the relevant property or properties concerning the channel quality. Therefore, recited by the claim “sections” are implicit in the disclosures for the system to work.
Regarding claims 2, 13 and 17, Coldrey teaches “wherein the reception characteristics are a reception power at the target reception point (Paragraph 0071: Channel quality could be evaluated by measuring received signal strength, Signal to Noise Ratio (SNR), Signal to Noise and Interference Ratio (SNIR) Bit Error Rate (BER) or Packet Error Rate. “at the target reception point” was addressed in the rejection of claim 6 above: it is either implicit, or it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize recordation of the channel quality specifically at the location of the receiver since it is there where the signal reception will be performed) or a propagation loss from the transmission point to the target reception point (Since the claim is written in the alternative form (“A or B”), it is sufficient to meet at least one of the limitations “A” or “B” in the claim to meet the limitations of the whole claim. In this case the limitation “A” is met.).”
Regarding claims 21 – 26, Coldrey in combination with ÅSTRÖM teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the target reception point is a position where a distribution density of terminal apparatuses in the area out of line-of-sight is high (ÅSTRÖM, FIG 1 and 2 showing “the target reception point” as plurality of user equipment 300a and 300b “in the area out of line-of-sight”. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize the same approach as shown by ÅSTRÖM in FIG 1 and/or 2 regardless of the “distribution density” of the user equipment (i.e. high and low) to provide coverage. Additionally or alternatively, the claimed limitation is merely a statement of intended use or an environment where the method or apparatus operate and thus this recitation does not have to be given patentable weight. “[a]n intended use or purpose usually will not limit the scope of the claim because such statements usually do no more than define a context in which the invention operates.” See Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. v. Schering-Plough Corp., 320 F.3d 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2003). Although “[s]uch statements often . . . appear in the claim’s preamble,” a statement of intended use or purpose can appear elsewhere in a claim. In re Stencel, 828 F.2d 751, 754 (Fed. Cir. 1987).).”
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 GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights