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 Amendment
This action is in reply to the Applicant’s amendments filed on 01 October 2025.
Claims 26-42 have been amended.
Claims 1-25 have been canceled.
Claims 43-45 have been added.
Claims 26-45 are currently pending and have been examined.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01 October 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8-10 of the Applicant’s Response, applicant argues that Liang does not disclose “the first AP determining” as recited in claims 26, 34, and 42.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s arguments, because Bethanabhotla disclose a central controller (Fig. 1) corresponding to the central controller (Fig. 1 (300), paragraph [0030] – applicant’s specification) connected to APs for coordinated communication between the APs and UE. Therefore Bethanabhotla in view of Jiang disclose the “the first AP determining” with assistance of central controller of claimed limitations in claims 26, 34, 42.
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 28, 29, 36, and 37 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claims disclose the second instantaneous link performance metric but the specification does not disclose the second instantaneous link performance metric measurement and determination for subsequent process.
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 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 of this title, 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 26-28, 30-36, 38-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub. No. 20170034841 to Bethanabhotla et al. in further view of U.S. PGPub. No. 20160080124 to Liang et al.
As to Claims 26, 34, and 42, Bethanabhotla discloses a first access point (AP), method performed by a first access point (AP), and computer program comprising a non-transitory computer readable storage medium storing a computer program for a first access point (AP), in a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) system comprising at least the first AP and a second AP, the first AP comprising processing circuitry, the processing circuitry/computer program comprising computer code being configured to cause the first AP to (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0002, 0030, 0045, 0063, 0070], where disclose multiple (first, second, etc.) Access Points MIMO communication with user equipments (UEs) implemented in hardware, software, or combination of):
receive, from at least a first UE, at least a first uplink signal ((Fig. 1, paragraph [0008, 0065, 0066], where the APs (first, second, etc.) receives the uplink signals (first, second, etc.) from the users (UEs – first, second, etc.));
determine, for a coherence block, at least a first instantaneous link performance metric based on the received first uplink signal, the first instantaneous link performance metric quantifying channel conditions of the first UE for the coherence block (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0005, 0006, 0008, 0065, 0066], where the APs (first, second, etc.) and central controller (part of APs) estimate the uplink channel state information (instantaneous link performance metric quantifying of uplink channel condition) from users (UEs – first, second, etc.) using coherent time/frequency/bandwidth communication between APs and UEs);
determine, based on the first instantaneous link performance metric for the coherent block, perform adapting action for the first UE, (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0008, 0065, 0066], where the APs (first, second, etc.) and central controller (part of APs) estimated the uplink channel state information (instantaneous link performance metric of uplink channel) is used for precoding (adapting action) downlink transmission to the UEs (first, second, etc.) and reciprocity of channel between the APs (first, second, etc.) with central controller and UEs (first, second, etc.) using coherent time/frequency/bandwidth communication).
Bethanabhotla discloses all of the subject matter as described above (Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0005, 0006, 0008, 0065, 0066]) except for quantifying channel condition with pre-defined threshold satisfy a trigger condition.
However, Liang in the same field of endeavor teaches the selection of the APs (fist, second, etc.) coordinated with server (central to all APs) assisted with having best uplink channel state information from the stations (UEs) with specific threshold value (trigger condition) (Fig. 1, Fig. 5, Fig. 6, Fig. 7, paragraph [0006, 0017, 0093, 0096, 0042]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use the threshold value to select best APs for communication with UEs as taught by Liang to modify the AP and method of Bethanabhotla to provide the enhance the communication system of the MIMO communication system (Liang - paragraph [0042]).
As to Claims 27 and 35, Bethanabhotla in view of Liang further discloses the AP and method wherein the coherence block is a time and/or frequency interval over which the first AP estimates a radio propagation channel, for which the channel conditions are satisfied, to vary less than threshold value (Bethanabhotla – paragraph [0008], where the channel estimation of channels (radio propagation over the air) between the APs and UEs use coherence time/frequency/bandwidth) (Liang – paragraph [0006, 0093, 0096], where none selection of APs when below the threshold value). The suggestion/motivation is the same as that used in the rejection for claims 26 and 34.
As to Claims 28 and 36, Bethanabhotla in view of Liang further discloses the AP and method wherein the first instantaneous link performance centric is either AP-centric or UE-centric, or wherein there are at least two instantaneous link performance metrics, at least one of which being AP-centric and at least one of which being UE-centric, the at least two instantaneous link performance metrics comprises at least the first instantaneous link performance metric and a second instantaneous link performance metric (Bethanabhotla – Fig. 1, paragraph [0006, 0008, 0059, 0060, 0061, 0065], where the channel estimations (in downlink and uplink – first and second instantaneous link metrics) between the APs and UEs based on channel shared between the APs and UEs (both AP centric and UE centric as shared)) (Liang – Fig. 15, paragraph [0006, 0093, 0096], where selection of the APs having best uplink channel state information from the stations (UEs) which shared between the APs and UEs (both AP centric and UE centric as shared) ). The suggestion/motivation is the same as that used in the rejection for claims 26 and 34.
As to Claims 30 and 38, Bethanabhotla in view of Liang further discloses the AP and method wherein the first instantaneous link performance metric is determined in parallel for the first UE and second UE, and wherein first network adapting action for first UE and a second network adapting action for the second UE is performed in parallel for the coherence block in response to the first AP determining that trigger condition is satisfied (Bethanabhotla – Fig. 1, paragraph [0006, 0008, 0059, 0060, 0061], where the channel estimations (multiple link performance metrics between APs (first, second, etc.) and UEs (first, second, etc.)) between the APs and UEs using coherence time/frequency/bandwidth compared implicitly in parallel for precoding (adapting action) downlink transmission networks (first, second, etc.) between APs (first, second, etc.) and UEs (first, second, etc.)) (Liang – Fig. 5-7, paragraph [0006, 0093, 0096], where different uplink qualities are compared simultaneously (in parallel) for different communication channels (networks) of APs (first, second, etc.) and UEs (first, second, etc.)). The suggestion/motivation is the same as that used in the rejection for claims 26 and 34.
As to Claims 31 and 39, Bethanabhotla in view of Liang further discloses the AP and method wherein further comprises the first AP obtaining information from the central controller or the second AP to update the first pre-defined threshold and the first AP updating first pre-determined threshold according to the obtained information (Bethanabhotla – Fig. 1, paragraph [0006, 0008, 0059, 0060, 0061], where the channel estimations between the APs and UEs compared for precoding (adapting action) downlink transmission between APs (first, second, etc.) and UEs) (Liang – paragraph [0006, 0093, 0096], where selection of the APs (first, second, etc.) having best uplink channel state information from the stations (UEs) with specific threshold value (trigger condition) implicitly changes/updated with requirements and specification). The suggestion/motivation is the same as that used in the rejection for claims 26 and 34.
As to Claims 32 and 40, Bethanabhotla in view of Liang further discloses the AP and method wherein the network adapting comprises starting serving first UE when the first UE is not presently served by the first AP, or stopping serving the first UE when the first UE presently served by the first AP (Bethanabhotla – Fig. 1, paragraph [0006, 0008, 0058, 0059, 0060, 0061], where the coordinating AP (first, second, etc.) implicitly start serving or stop serving the UEs as UEs moving closer or further form current serving AP to different AP) (Liang – paragraph [0006, 0093, 0096], where selection (serving or not serving) of the APs (first, second, etc.) changes as the stations (UEs) implicitly moving to different network). The suggestion/motivation is the same as that used in the rejection for claims 26 and 34.
As to Claims 33 and 41, Bethanabhotla in view of Liang further discloses the AP and method wherein further comprises the first AP informing a central controller and/or at least second AP of network adapting action was performed for the first AP (Bethanabhotla – Fig. 1, paragraph [0006, 0008, 0059, 0060, 0061], where the channel estimations between the APs (first, second, etc.) and UEs (first, second, etc.) informed to the central controller for multiple UEs) (Liang – Fig. 15, paragraph [0006, 0093, 0096], where selection of the APs (first, second, etc.) having best uplink channel state information from the stations (UEs) with specific threshold value (trigger condition) performed by the server receiving information from APs). The suggestion/motivation is the same as that used in the rejection for claims 26 and 34.
As to Claim 43, Bethanabhotla discloses the AP and method wherein the first instantaneous link performance metric quantifies a noise plus interference level experience at the first AP (Bethanabhotla – Fig. 1, paragraph [0006, 0008, 0018, 0029, 0059, 0060, 0061, 0090], where the channel estimations (link performance metrics) between the APs (first, second, etc.) and UEs (first, second, etc.) includes the noise interference SINR (signal to interference plus noise ratio) from neighbors).
Claims 44 and 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. PGPub. No. 20170034841 to Bethanabhotla et al. and PGPub. No. 20160080124 to Liang et al. in further view of U.S. PGPub. No. 20150334656 to Ji et al.
As to Claim 44, Bethanabhotla in view of Liang discloses the first access point (AP) and method wherein the APs (first, second, etc.) and central controller (part of APs) estimate the uplink channel state information (instantaneous link performance metric quantifying of uplink channel condition) from users (UEs – first, second, etc.) using coherent time/frequency/bandwidth communication between APs and UEs (Bethanabhotla - Fig. 1, Fig. 2, paragraph [0005, 0006, 0008, 0065, 0066]) except for link performance metric quantifies: a Doppler spread of a radion propagation channel, a highest Doppler shift of the radio propagation channel, and/or a Doppler shift of strongest path of the radio propagation channel.
However, Ji in the same field of endeavor teaches the channel estimation in high Doppler shift and signal to noise ratio (abstract, paragraph [0005, 0008]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinarily skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention use channel estimation in high Doppler shift and signa noise ratio channel as taught by Ji to modify the AP and method of Bethanabhotla and Liang to provide the enhance the communication system of the MIMO communication system in various environment.
As to Claim 45, Bethanabhotla and Liang in view of Ji discloses the AP and method wherein performing the first network adapting action for the first UE comprises ceasing transmission and/or reception of data signal to the first UE (Bethanabhotla – Fig. 1, paragraph [0006, 0008, 0058, 0059, 0060, 0061], where the coordinating AP (first, second, etc.) implicitly start serving or stop (cease) serving the UEs (first, second, etc.) as UEs moving closer or further form current serving AP to different AP) (Liang – paragraph [0006, 0093, 0096], where selection (serving or cease serving) of the APs (first, second, etc.) changes as the stations (UEs) implicitly moving to different network).
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.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SUNG S AHN whose telephone number is (571)270-3706. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 9-6.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hannah Wang can be reached on 571-272-9018. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/SUNG S AHN/Examiner, Art Unit 2631 (571)-270-3706
sung.ahn@uspto.gov