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 .
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required: “angular motion detection apparatus” in claim 1, “apparatus” in claim 13, and “base station” in claim 17. Specifically, none of the terms are used in reference to the claimed subject matter in the Description of Embodiments section of the specification as it relates to the detailed description of the invention. Generally, the claims should use the same terminology that is used to describe the invention in the specification, e.g., gyroscope, AISU, and base station system, in order to enhance the clarity and usefulness of the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: The recitation “wherein the processor is one of processors of the apparatus” should read “wherein the processor is one of the processors of the apparatus” or the like in order to ensure grammatical comprehension. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “obtaining angular velocity data measured by an angular motion detection apparatus that is stationary relative to a base station antenna” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, because it is unclear whether the angular velocity data relates to the angular velocity of the angular motion detection apparatus itself, or whether the angular velocity data relates to another object whose angular velocity the angular motion detection apparatus is measuring. Second, because it appears that there is no requirement within this method that the angular motion detection apparatus, or whatever the angular motion detection apparatus is measuring, actually has an angular velocity to measure in the first place. Logically, angular velocity data cannot be meaningfully measured if no element or subject of the invention has angular velocity. However, the only two structural elements claimed in the invention, the angular motion detection apparatus and the base station antenna, are stationary relative to one another and therefore have no relative angular velocity. Therefore, it is unclear if the claimed invention encompasses embodiments where the base station antenna at rest, and additionally what frame of reference the angular velocity is being considered from, i.e., from an observer or from the perspective of the Earth generally. Claims 13 and 17 are likewise rejected, and dependent claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18-20 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “determining, based on the angular velocity data, a first position relationship between a direction of a sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus and a true north direction” which is indefinite, because it requires knowledge of the sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus which is not necessarily known or knowable. For example, the method does not require determining the direction of the sensitive axis, nor does the method require that that angular motion detection apparatus be stationary in the first place, so that it can even be said to have a “direction” of the sensitive axis. Having an axial direction only makes sense in a fixed frame of reference, but there is not requirement that the base station antenna be stationary. Claims 13 and 17 are likewise rejected, and dependent claims 2-12, 14-16, and 18-20 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 1 recites “wherein the second position relationship is a position relationship between the direction of the sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus and a direction of a main lobe of the base station antenna” which is indefinite, because it is unclear how the second position relationship can have any real meaning or value unless the angular motion detection apparatus and the base station antenna are operatively connected to one another. However, there is no requirement in the claims that the angular motion detection apparatus and the base station antenna be operatively connected, or even in the same room/building, such that the claimed invention necessarily encompasses embodiments of the invention where the angular motion detection apparatus and the base station antenna are not in the same room, which would appear to exceed the scope of Applicant’s disclosure and is not otherwise described by Applicant as being a practicable embodiment. Claims 13 and 17 are likewise rejected, and dependent claims 2-10, 12, 14-15, and 19-20 fail to cure the deficiency. Examiner notes that claims 11, 16, and 18 do cure the deficiency.
Claim 2 recites “wherein the sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus is parallel to a horizontal plane on which the base station antenna is located” which is indefinite, because it is unclear what it means for the base station antenna, which is nominally a three-dimensional object, to be “located” on a horizontal plane. Similarly a table has a top surface that may define a horizontal plane, but a POSITA would not describe the table as being “located” on a horizontal plane. Claims 14 and 18 are likewise rejected, and dependent claims 3-10, 15, and 19 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 6 recites “obtaining a third position relationship” which is indefinite, because it is unclear whether the third position relationship is being received or calculated/determined by the method. Dependent claims 7-10 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 13 recites “An apparatus for measuring an azimuth of a base station antenna, comprising: a memory, configured to store instructions executed by one or more processors of the apparatus; and a processor, wherein the processor is one of processors of the apparatus, and is configured to run the instructions, so that the apparatus is enabled to implement: obtaining angular velocity data measured by an angular motion detection apparatus…” which is indefinite for two reasons. First, it is unclear which “apparatus” Applicant is referring to with regard to the disclosure. It appears that Applicant may be referring to the antenna information sensor unit (AISU), shown as “20” in, e.g., Figure 2. However, Applicant never actually refers to the AISU as an apparatus in the specification. Second, assuming that the AISU is indeed the “apparatus” of claim 13, it would be improper to say that the apparatus “obtains” angular velocity data that is “measured” by an angular motion detection apparatus, because as shown in Figure 3A, the gyroscope 231 is part of the AISU 20. There can be no step of the AISU “obtaining” the data that is separate from the gyroscope taking the measurements in the first place. The gyroscope is part of the AISU, so the AISU obtains the data when it is measured by the gyroscope. Dependent claims 14-15 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim 17 recites “obtaining angular velocity data measured by an angular motion detection apparatus” which is indefinite, because it is unclear if the recited angular motion detection apparatus is one of the previously recited “at least one angular motion detection apparatus” or whether it is separate and distinct. Dependent claims 18-20 fail to cure the deficiency.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 11-14, 16-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 includes the limitations of, “determining, based on the angular velocity data, a first position relationship between a direction of a sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus and a true north direction” and “determining an azimuth of the base station antenna based on the first position relationship and a second position relationship, wherein the second position relationship is a position relationship between the direction of the sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus and a direction of a main lobe of the base station antenna” which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of comparing data as well as identifying problems/solutions to the comparison which all can reasonably be performed using the human mind/with pen and paper and thus fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claim 1 includes the limitation of, “obtaining angular velocity data measured by an angular motion detection apparatus that is stationary relative to a base station antenna”, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, adds insignificant extra solution activity in the form of mere data gathering (see MPEP 2106.05(g)).
The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering angular velocity data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Independent claims 13 and 17 are substantially similar to claim 1 and are thus rejected using the same rationale as presented above. Claims 13 and 17 do include the additional limitations of “a memory” and “a processor”, however, as generally recited are interpreted as generic computer components for implementing the abstract idea.
Dependent claims 2-4, 11-12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 3 recites the mathematical formula for determining the included angle between the direction of the gyroscope sensitive axis of true north, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, is understood as mathematical calculations to calculate geometrical relationships, which falls under the “Mathematical Concepts” grouping of abstract ideas. Furthermore, claim 4 recites a further determining step for determining the azimuth of the antenna, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong One, includes limitations of comparing data as well as identifying problems/solutions to the comparison which all can reasonably be performed using the human mind/with pen and paper and thus fall within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. Claims 2, 11-12, 14, 16, 18, and 20 each include limitations detailing a specific orientation of the sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus and a location of the apparatus, which analyzed under Step 2A Prong Two, is understood as merely an initial configuration for operability which just generally applies the use of the judicial exception (see MPEP 2106.05(f)).
The claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because as analyzed under Step 2B, the additional elements merely amount to gathering angular velocity data and sending the data over a network. Analyzed under Berkheimer, the act of gathering and sending data over a network has been deemed as well-understood, routine, and conventional by the courts (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(II), “sending/receiving data over a network”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 11-14, 16, 17-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Strong (US 2017/0331533 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rausch discloses a method for measuring an azimuth of a base station antenna (para. [0079], regarding calculate accurate correction phases to apply to each antenna element signal to correct for changes in azimuth angle detected by the gyroscopic sensor), wherein the method comprises:
obtaining angular velocity data measured by an angular motion detection apparatus (para. [0043], regarding the gyroscopic sensor 12 is a rate gyro, and said output of the gyroscopic sensor is an angular rotation rate) that is stationary relative to a base station antenna (as shown in fig. 2), and determining, based on the angular velocity data, a first position relationship between a direction of a sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus and a true north direction (para. [0045], regarding integrating the angular rotation rate and removing a mean value to determine an azimuth angle); and
determining an azimuth of the base station antenna (see again para. [0045]) based on the first position relationship and a second position relationship (para. [0055], regarding process an output of the gyroscopic sensor to generate a plurality of first phase corrections for a first time interval and to generate a plurality of second phase corrections for a second time interval), wherein the second position relationship is a position relationship between the direction of the sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus and a direction of a main lobe of the base station antenna (para. [0055], regarding form, based on the measured respective signal propagation characteristics, the plurality of first phase corrections and the plurality of second phase corrections, a Multi User Multiple Input Multiple Output MU-MIMO beam pattern for the second time interval having a main lobe towards the first subscriber module and a null towards the second subscriber module).
Regarding claim 2, Strong discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus is parallel to a horizontal plane on which the base station antenna is located (inherent given the operation described in paras. [0076-0077].
Regarding claim 11, Strong discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the angular motion detection apparatus (12) is disposed on the base station antenna (as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 12, Strong discloses the invention in claim 1, and further discloses wherein the angular motion detection apparatus comprises a gyroscope (12).
Regarding claim 13, Rausch discloses an apparatus for measuring an azimuth of a base station antenna (see again para. [0079]), comprising:
a memory, configured to store instructions executed by one or more processors of the apparatus (para. [0127], regarding the method of embodiments of the disclosure may be implemented by a processor, which may comprise program code held in a memory configured to cause the processor to perform the method); and
a processor, wherein the processor is one of processors of the apparatus, and is configured to run the instructions (see again para. [0127]), so that the apparatus is enabled to implement:
obtaining angular velocity data measured by an angular motion detection apparatus (see again para. [0043]) that is stationary relative to a base station antenna (as shown in fig. 2), and determining, based on the angular velocity data, a first position relationship between a direction of a sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus and a true north direction (see again para. [0045]); and
determining an azimuth of the base station antenna (see again para. [0045]) based on the first position relationship and a second position relationship (see again para. [0055]), wherein the second position relationship is a position relationship between the direction of the sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus and a direction of a main lobe of the base station antenna (see again para. [0055]).
Regarding claim 14, Strong discloses the invention in claim 13, and further discloses wherein the sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus is parallel to a horizontal plane on which the base station antenna is located (inherent given the operation described in paras. [0076-0077].
Regarding claim 16, Strong discloses the invention in claim 13, and further discloses wherein the angular motion detection apparatus (12) is disposed on the base station antenna (as shown in fig. 2).
Regarding claim 17, Rausch discloses a base station (access point 1; fig. 1), comprising:
at least one base station antenna (antenna array 14);
at least one angular motion detection apparatus (gyro 12);
a memory, configured to store instructions executed by one or more processors of the apparatus (para. [0127], regarding the method of embodiments of the disclosure may be implemented by a processor, which may comprise program code held in a memory configured to cause the processor to perform the method); and
a processor, wherein the processor is one of processors of the base station, and is configured to run the instructions to obtain angular velocity data from the at least one angular motion detection apparatus (see again para. [0127]), to measure an azimuth of the at least one base station antenna by:
obtaining angular velocity data measured by an angular motion detection apparatus (see again para. [0043]) that is stationary relative to a base station antenna (as shown in fig. 2), and determining, based on the angular velocity data, a first position relationship between a direction of a sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus and a true north direction (see again para. [0045]); and
determining an azimuth of the base station antenna (see again para. [0045]) based on the first position relationship and a second position relationship (see again para. [0055]), wherein the second position relationship is a position relationship between the direction of the sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus and a direction of a main lobe of the base station antenna (see again para. [0055]).
Regarding claim 18, Strong discloses the invention in claim 17, and further discloses wherein the sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus is parallel to a horizontal plane on which the base station antenna is located (inherent given the operation described in paras. [0076-0077].
Regarding claim 20, Strong discloses the invention in claim 17, and further discloses wherein the angular motion detection apparatus (12) is disposed on the base station antenna (as shown in fig. 2).
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, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
a) Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
b) Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
c) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
d) Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Strong (US 2017/0331533 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Strong discloses the invention in claim 2, but does not appear to specifically disclose wherein the first position relationship between the direction of the sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus and the true north direction is determined by using the formula recited in the claim, wherein α is an included angle between the direction of the sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus and the true north direction, ωn is the angular velocity data measured by the angular motion detection apparatus, ωE is an angular velocity of the Earth's rotation, and φ is a latitude of a location of the angular motion detection apparatus.
However, the calculation of an angle in three-dimensional polar coordinate system given the necessary data is well-known and conventionally performed by those of ordinary skill in the art, the math for such a calculation having been discovered long ago.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the invention of Strong such that the first position relationship between the direction of the sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus and the true north direction is determined by using the formula recited in the claim, wherein α is an included angle between the direction of the sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus and the true north direction, ωn is the angular velocity data measured by the angular motion detection apparatus, ωE is an angular velocity of the Earth's rotation, and φ is a latitude of a location of the angular motion detection apparatus, with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to ensure that the azimuth of the antenna can be determined regardless of the inclination angle of the antenna with respect to a horizontal plane.
Regarding claim 4, Strong as modified discloses the invention in claim 3, and further discloses wherein the determining of an azimuth of the base station antenna based on the first position relationship and the second position relationship comprises: when the direction of the sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus is the same as a direction of a projection of the direction of the main lobe of the base station antenna on the horizontal plane, determining that the azimuth of the base station antenna is α; or when there is an included angle β between the direction of the sensitive axis of the angular motion detection apparatus and the direction of the projection of the direction of the main lobe of the base station antenna on the horizontal plane, determining that the azimuth of the base station antenna is α+β (Examiner notes that, given the modification to Strong per claim 3 above, it is inherent that either azimuth is α when the sensitive axis of the gyroscope aligns with the main lobe of the antenna, or that the azimuth is the sum of α+β).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-10, 15, and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The cited references made of record in the contemporaneously filed PTO-892 form and not relied upon in the instant office action are considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure, and may have one or more of the elements in Applicant’s disclosure and at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADY W FRAZIER whose telephone number is (469)295-9263. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm CT.
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, William Kelleher can be reached at 571-272-7753. 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.
/BRADY W FRAZIER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3648