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 .
Priority
1. The present application is a continuation of application 17190223 filed 03/02/2021.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
2. Regarding the double patenting rejection, the Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered; the newly amended claim language overcomes the previously applied rejection, which has been withdrawn.
3. Regarding the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection, the Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered; the newly amended claim language overcomes the previously applied rejection, which has been withdrawn.
4. Regarding the prior art rejection, the Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the previously cited prior art, Frank (US20180152228A1), does not teach the claim limitations. Specifically, the Applicant argues that Frank does not teach exchanging antenna array properties comprising geometric properties of the array, and characterizes Frank as disclosing exchanging CSI, from which antenna element spacings (a geometric property of the antenna array), can be calculated. The Examiner points to cited paragraph [0133] which states “element spacings can be received”, and cited Fig. 6 element 620 which states “receive element spacings of an antenna array”. The Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive.
Claim Objections
5. Claims 3 – 4, 11 – 12, and 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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.
6. Claim(s) 1 – 2, 5 – 10, 13 – 16, and 18 – 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank (US20180152228A1)
Regarding claim 1, Frank discloses subject matter relating to configuration of communication around antenna properties. Specifically, Frank discloses a wireless node for wireless communication (apparatus; see Fig. 9), comprising:
a memory (memory; see paragraph [0150] and Fig. 9); and
one or more processors, coupled to the memory (controller; see paragraph [0149] and Fig. 9), configured to:
transmit, to another wireless node, information related to one or more properties of a first antenna array associated with the wireless node wherein the one or more properties of the first antenna array comprise one or more geometric properties of the first antenna array (transmitting device sends antenna element spacings to receiving device; see paragraph [0133] and Fig. 6 element 620; the Examiner notes that element spacings are related to the geometry of the array);
receive, from the other wireless node, information related to one or more properties of a second antenna array associated with the other wireless node wherein the one or more properties of the first antenna array comprise one or more geometric properties of the first antenna array (transmitting device sends antenna element spacings to receiving device; see paragraph [0133] and Fig. 6 element 620; the Examiner notes that element spacings are related to the geometry of the array); and
communicate with the other wireless node over a wireless link using one or more beams associated with an operating frequency, wherein the operating frequency is based at least in part on the one or more properties of the first antenna array and the one or more properties of the second antenna array (antenna element spacings that optimize link capacity are signaled to other device; see paragraph [0134] and Fig. 6 element 670; the Examiner notes that operating frequency is inherently based on antenna element spacing, as in eg paragraph [0044] or Fig. 2; antenna array (ie beam communication); see paragraph [0017]).
Regarding claims 2, 10, and 16, Frank discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Frank further discloses
wherein the one or more properties of the first antenna array and the one or more properties of the second antenna array relate to inter- antenna element spacings in one or more dimensions (transmitting device sends antenna element spacings to receiving device; see paragraph [0133] and Fig. 6 element 620; antenna element spacings that optimize link capacity are signaled to other device; see paragraph [0134] and Fig. 6 element 670)
Regarding claim 5, Frank discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Frank further discloses
wherein one or more of the information transmitted to the other wireless node or the information received from the other wireless node includes a one-bit field to indicate whether a corresponding antenna array has uniform or non-uniform inter-antenna element spacings in one or more dimensions (antenna element spacings are transmitted; see paragraph [0133] and Fig. 6 element 620; spacing can be uniform along one or more dimensions; see paragraph [0080])
Frank discloses the indication of uniform element spacing being transmitted to the other node, but does not explicitly disclose using a single bit field to do so. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Frank to use a single bit. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so, as disclosing this information in a single bit is the most compact (and therefore most efficient) way to do so. Further, the choice of what format the data should be in is a selection between a finite number of options, with a reasonable expectation of success, which has been determined by the Supreme Court (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)) to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Frank does not explicitly disclose both devices transmitting antenna array properties. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Frank by specifying this. Frank suggests that one might do this (See paragraphs [0148] and [0163]); one of ordinary skill in the art might find it further obvious to do so, as the benefits of communicating antenna array properties are not limited to a single device; communication efficiency could be improved by any number of devices sharing their parameters. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claim 6, Frank discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Frank further discloses
wherein one or more of the information transmitted to the other wireless node or the information received from the other wireless node includes a two-bit field having first bit to indicate whether a corresponding antenna array has uniform or non-uniform inter-antenna element spacings in a first dimension and a second bit to indicate whether the corresponding antenna array has uniform or non-uniform inter-antenna element spacings in a second dimension (antenna element spacings are transmitted; see paragraph [0133] and Fig. 6 element 620; spacing can be uniform along one or more dimensions; see paragraph [0080]).
Frank discloses the indication of multi-dimensional uniform element spacing being transmitted to the other node, but does not explicitly disclose using two bits to do so. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Frank to use two bits. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so, as disclosing this information in a two bits is the most compact (and therefore most efficient) way to do so. Further, the choice of what format the data should be in is a selection between a finite number of options, with a reasonable expectation of success, which has been determined by the Supreme Court (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)) to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention.
Regarding claim 7, Frank discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Frank further discloses
wherein the information transmitted to the other wireless node and the information received from the other wireless node indicate the one or more properties for one or more antenna arrays across one or more antenna modules (antenna array; see paragraph [0153] and Fig. 9; the Examiner understands this antenna array as also being an antenna module)
Regarding claim 8, Frank discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Frank further discloses
wherein one or more of the information transmitted to the other wireless node or the information received from the other wireless node includes a common inter-antenna element spacing across one or more dimensions for a corresponding antenna array (antenna element spacings are transmitted; see paragraph [0133] and Fig. 6 element 620; the Examiner notes that it is clear in context that the two devices can have the same antenna element spacings; this would therefore be a common antenna inter-element spacing)
Regarding claim 9, Frank discloses a method of wireless communication performed by a wireless node (apparatus; see Fig. 9), comprising:
transmitting, to another wireless node, information related to one or more properties of a first antenna array associated with the wireless node wherein the one or more properties of the first antenna array comprise one or more geometric properties of the first antenna array (transmitting device sends antenna element spacings to receiving device; see paragraph [0133] and Fig. 6 element 620; the Examiner notes that element spacings are related to the geometry of the array);
receiving, from the other wireless node, information related to one or more properties of a second antenna array associated with the other wireless node wherein the one or more properties of the first antenna array comprise one or more geometric properties of the first antenna array (transmitting device sends antenna element spacings to receiving device; see paragraph [0133] and Fig. 6 element 620; the Examiner notes that element spacings are related to the geometry of the array);
communicating with the other wireless node over a wireless link using one or more beams associated with an operating frequency, wherein the operating frequency is based at least in part on the one or more properties of the first antenna array and the one or more properties of the second antenna array (antenna element spacings that optimize link capacity are signaled to other device; see paragraph [0134] and Fig. 6 element 670; the Examiner notes that operating frequency is inherently based on antenna element spacing, as in eg paragraph [0044] or Fig. 2; antenna array (ie beam communication); see paragraph [0017]).
Frank does not explicitly disclose both devices transmitting antenna array properties. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Frank by specifying this. Frank suggests that one might do this (See paragraphs [0148] and [0163]); one of ordinary skill in the art might find it further obvious to do so, as the benefits of communicating antenna array properties are not limited to a single device; communication efficiency could be improved by any number of devices sharing their parameters. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claims 13 and 18, Frank teaches the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Frank further teaches wherein
wherein one or more of the information transmitted to the other wireless node or the information received from the other wireless node includes a largest or a smallest inter-antenna element spacing across one or more dimensions for a corresponding antenna array (allowed antenna element spacings are transmitted; see paragraph [0133] and Fig. 6 element 620; the Examiner notes that transmitting the allowed spacings would transmit the smallest and largest spacings)
Regarding claims 14 and 19, Frank teaches the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Frank further teaches wherein
wherein one or more of the information transmitted to the other wireless node or the information received from the other wireless node includes a number of antenna elements across one or more dimensions for a corresponding antenna array (antenna element spacings are transmitted; see paragraph [0133] and Fig. 6 element 620)
Frank does not explicitly disclose the number of elements being transmitted. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the disclosure of Frank to do so, as this information would be helpful for the receiving device in deciding how best to configure the communication. In addition, Frank discloses that, from the information transmitted, this information is possible to derive (see paragraph [0156]). Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claim 15, Frank discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication (apparatus; see Fig. 9; memory; see paragraph [0150] and Fig. 9 element 970), the set of instructions comprising:
one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a wireless node (software in memory; see paragraph [0151]), cause the wireless node to:
transmit, to another wireless node, information related to one or more properties of a first antenna array associated with the wireless node wherein the one or more properties of the first antenna array comprise one or more geometric properties of the first antenna array (transmitting device sends antenna element spacings to receiving device; see paragraph [0133] and Fig. 6 element 620; the Examiner notes that element spacings are related to the geometry of the array);
receive, from the other wireless node, information related to one or more properties of a second antenna array associated with the other wireless node wherein the one or more properties of the first antenna array comprise one or more geometric properties of the first antenna array (transmitting device sends antenna element spacings to receiving device; see paragraph [0133] and Fig. 6 element 620; the Examiner notes that element spacings are related to the geometry of the array);
communicate with the other wireless node over a wireless link using one or more beams associated with an operating frequency, wherein the operating frequency is based at least in part on the one or more properties of the first antenna array and the one or more properties of the second antenna array (antenna element spacings that optimize link capacity are signaled to other device; see paragraph [0134] and Fig. 6 element 670; the Examiner notes that operating frequency is inherently based on antenna element spacing, as in eg paragraph [0044] or Fig. 2; antenna array (ie beam communication); see paragraph [0017]).
Frank does not explicitly disclose both devices transmitting antenna array properties. However, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teaching of Frank by specifying this. Frank suggests that one might do this (See paragraphs [0148] and [0163]); one of ordinary skill in the art might find it further obvious to do so, as the benefits of communicating antenna array properties are not limited to a single device; communication efficiency could be improved by any number of devices sharing their parameters. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claim 20, Frank discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Frank further discloses
wherein the operating frequency is further based at least in part on one or more structural parameters associated with the wireless node or the other wireless node (antenna element spacings that optimize link capacity are signaled to other device to be used for communication; see paragraph [0134] and Fig. 6 element 670; the Examiner notes that operating frequency is inherently based on antenna element spacing, as in eg paragraph [0044] or Fig. 2, and further notes that element spacings are structural parameters).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 STEPHEN STEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9825. The examiner can normally be reached M - R 08:00 - 16:00; F 08:00 - 12:00.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 5712723139. 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.
/S.S./Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights