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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-6, 8 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh et al. (US 2024/0032019) in view of Almers et al. (WO 2025/136160). For dependent claims herein, the motivation to combine is the same as the parent claim unless otherwise noted.
Regarding claim 1, Singh discloses a method comprising: communicating, by a wireless access point of a wireless local area network (fig. 3, item 108A) to a management service (item 106 and/or 140; fig. 1B item 118; paras. 41 and 49), a request (step 2A) to operate a transmission beam to be produced by the wireless access point using a transmitter and
However, Singh fails to disclose a software-defined antenna and the beam configuration information identifying parameters that the wireless access point is to utilize for operation of the transmission beam to be produced by the wireless access point using the transmitter and the software-defined antenna. Almers discloses a software-defined antenna (page 16, lines 15-29; note: software controlled operation of the radio including beamforming calculations for the antenna array; page 12, line 9 through page 13, line 17) and a beam index for identifying beam parameters (page 13, table 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a software-defined antenna and the beam configuration information identifying parameters that the wireless access point is to utilize for operation of the transmission beam to be produced by the wireless access point using the transmitter and the software-defined antenna in the invention of Singh. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing a flexible antenna arrangement and transmitting an index to a beam codebook, respectively, as is known in the art (Almers, pages 12, 13 and 16; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 2, Singh in view of Almers teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the transmission beam is operated at a transmission frequency in a 6 Gigahertz (GHz) band (Almers, para. 36 and para. 46, last sentence).
Regarding claim 3, Singh in view of Almers teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the parameters of the beam configuration information identify one or more of: a beam width that the wireless access point is to utilize or is not to utilize to configure the software-defined antenna to operate the transmission beam (Almers, page 13, lines 14-16; note: implied beam width of the beam); orientation information that the wireless access point is to utilize or is not to utilize to configure the software-defined antenna to operate the transmission beam (Almers, page 13, beam direction weights for elevation and azimuth); at least one transmission frequency that the wireless access point is to utilize or is not to utilize to configure the transmitter to operate the transmission beam (Almers, page 12, lines 9-26; page 13, lines 1-2 and 16-17); or at least one transmission power that the wireless access point is to utilize or is not to utilize to configure the transmitter to operate the transmission beam (Singh, para. 100, especially the first two sentences; para. 102).
Regarding claim 4, Singh in view of Almers teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 3, wherein the beam width identifies a wide transmission beam width or a narrow transmission beam width that the wireless access point is to utilize or is not to utilize to configure the software-defined antenna to operate the transmission beam (Almers, page 13, lines 14-17; note: implied beam width of the beam).
Regarding claim 5, Singh in view of Almers teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 3, wherein the orientation information indicates at least one of: a horizontal orientation that the wireless access point is to utilize or is not to utilize to configure the software-defined antenna to operate the transmission beam (Almers, page 13, table 1; note: azimuth); or a vertical orientation that the wireless access point is to utilize or is not to utilize to configure the software-defined antenna to operate the transmission beam (Almers, page 13, table 1; note: elevation).
Regarding claim 6, Singh in view of Almers teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 3, wherein the at least one transmission frequency is at least one frequency within a 6 Gigahertz (GHz) frequency band that the wireless access point is to utilize or is not to utilize to configure the transmitter to operate the transmission beam (Almers, para. 36 and para. 46, last sentence).
Regarding claim 8, Singh in view of Almers teaches and makes obvious the method of claim 3, further comprising: configuring at least one of the transmitter or the software-defined antenna based on the parameters of the beam configuration information (Singh, fig. 4 and para. 78-80; note: downlink transmission with a configured beam; Almers, pages 12-13 and 16); and operating the transmission beam by performing transmissions via the transmitter and the software-defined antenna (Singh, fig. 4 and para. 78-80; note: downlink transmission with a configured beam; Almers, pages 12-13 and 16).
Regarding claims 12-14, these limitations are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1, 3 and 8, respectively. In addition, Singh discloses one or more non-transitory computer readable storage media encoded with instructions that, when executed by a processor, cause the processor to perform operations (paras. 6, 45-46 and 48; note: AP and AP controller having suitable hardware including a processor and computer-readable storage having instructions) of the method of claims 1, 3 and 8.
Regarding claim 15-19, these limitations are rejected on the same grounds as claims 1 and 3-6, respectively. In addition, Singh discloses the wireless access point, comprising: at least one memory element for storing data; and at least one processor for executing instructions associated with the data, wherein executing the instructions causes the wireless access point to perform operations (paras. 6, 45-46 and 48; note: AP having suitable hardware including a processor and computer-readable storage having instructions) of the method of claims 1 and 3-6.
Claims 7 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Almers as applied to claim 3 or 15 above, and further in view of Peng et al. (US 2025/0183992).
Regarding claim 7, Singh in view of Almers fails to teach and make obvious the method of claim 3, wherein the at least one transmission power is at least one Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) level that the wireless access point is to utilize or is not to utilize to configure the transmitter to operate the transmission beam. However, Peng discloses an EIRP level for a beam (para. 98, especially the last three sentences; note: the specification of the instant application in para. 21 equates EIRP with transmission power). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one transmission power is at least one Equivalent Isotropic Radiated Power (EIRP) level that the wireless access point is to utilize or is not to utilize to configure the transmitter to operate the transmission beam in the invention of Singh in view of Almers. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, providing characteristics of a transmission beam as is known in the art (Peng, para. 98, especially the first three sentences; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 20, these limitations are rejected on the same grounds as claim 7.
Claims 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh in view of Almers as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hu et al. (US 11,224,044).
Regarding claims 9-10, Singh in view of Almers fails to teach and make obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the beam configuration information is provided to the wireless access point based on one or more incumbent wireless transmission devices operating within a geographic proximity of the wireless access point, and the method of claim 9, wherein the beam configuration information is provided to the wireless access point for an automated frequency coordination (AFC) process provided by the management service.
However, Hu discloses a device receiving beam configuration information from an SAS AFC based on incumbent devices operating within a geographic proximity of the device (figs. 2A-8; col. 7, lines 56-62; col. 8, line 59 through col. 9, line 16; col. 15, lines 23-31). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have wherein the beam configuration information is provided to the wireless access point based on one or more incumbent wireless transmission devices operating within a geographic proximity of the wireless access point, and the method of claim 9, wherein the beam configuration information is provided to the wireless access point for an automated frequency coordination (AFC) process provided by the management service in the invention of Singh in view of Almers. The motivation to have the modification and/or well-known benefits of the modification include, but are not limited to, avoid interference in communication as is known in the art (Hu, figs. 2A-8; col. 7, lines 56-62; col. 8, line 59 through col. 9, line 16; col. 15, lines 23-31; MPEP 2143(I)(A)(B)(C)(D) - note: e.g., applying known techniques having predictable results).
Regarding claim 11, Singh in view of Almers fails to teach and make obvious the method of claim 1, wherein the request includes at least one of:
However, Hu discloses a request including frequency and beam transmission power (col. 12, lines 65-67). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the request include at least one of: .
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Palayur et al. (US 2023/0232242) discloses an AFC system for Wi-Fi (figs. 2-3B and 6A-6B).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kevin Harper whose telephone number is 571-272-3166. The examiner can normally be reached weekdays from 11:00 AM to 7:00 PM 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, Yemane Mesfin, can be reached at 571-272-3927. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. For non-official communications, the examiner’s e-mail address is kevin.harper@uspto.gov (MPEP 502.03 – A copy of all received emails relating to an application including proposed amendments and excluding scheduling information for interviews will be placed informally into the application file).
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.
/Kevin C. Harper/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462