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 08/28/2024.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “S102” in FIG 3. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a propagation-path setting section”, “a reception-characteristics estimating section”, “an installation-position determining section” and “a reflection-beam determining section” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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) and US 20240162960 (ÅSTRÖM).
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.);
calculating a total value of the reception characteristics by selecting the radio-wave propagation paths in descending order of reception characteristics at the target reception point, and determining an installation position of a radio-wave reflecting member based on a selection result of one or more radio-wave propagation paths selected by a time when the total value becomes higher than a predetermined target quality (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 (since the claim does not specifically define how exactly “a total value of the reception characteristics” is calculated, within the concept of broadest reasonable interpretation, each of the recorded values for the candidate reflection/diffraction points 3:1 to 3:N may be equated to “a total value of the reception characteristics”) 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. This directly corresponds to the claimed “determining an installation position of a radio-wave reflecting member based on a selection result of one or more radio-wave propagation paths selected by a time when the total value becomes higher than a predetermined target quality”. Although Coldrey does not state that during evaluation of plurality of the recorded channel qualities of the N positions they are arranged “in descending order of reception characteristics at the target reception point”, it is simply an obvious matter of choice on how to present information for subsequent processing: evaluate them in the order of recordation from 1 to N prior to selecting the one which is above the threshold, or sort them in the descending order first, and still select the one which is above the threshold. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to optionally sort the recorded channel qualities in the descending order prior to selection the highest one or the one which is above the threshold as simply a matter of design choice with predictable results)…”
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).
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 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
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