DETAILED ACTION
Applicants’ response filed 7/16/2026 has been considered.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1-17 and 21-23 are pending.
Prior rejections are maintained as the claim amendments do no significantly alter the scope of the claims. See prior office action(s) for details.
New rejections under 35 USC 112, 2nd are presented in view of amendments.
Application is pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments filed 7/16/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
For example, claim 1 recites:
PNG
media_image1.png
276
652
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
510
647
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
90
650
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Essentially the claim states to update a communication setting based on sensor data (i.e., either the weather sensor or the antenna sensor).
Applicants contend the prior art does not teach or suggest, “…use the sensor data…to select a threshold value for use in deciding whether or not to switch from an original communication setting to an updated communication setting…”
The Examiner respectfully disagrees and would like to remind Applicants that the rejection was presented under 35 USC 103 rationale.
For example, Shoemake teaches (i.e., Figures 2-5 along with paragraphs 0032-0038) the joint power control and rate control method is used in a communication system that includes a transmitting apparatus 210 and a receiving apparatus 220.
Shoemake teaches that upon transmission from AP 210 to STA 220, the SNR of the transmission is of interest. STA 220 has direct access to estimation of the SNR. AP 210 requires knowledge of the SNR as input 330a to joint rate and power control method 310. STA 220 may transmit this information to AP 210, or AP 210 may calculate an estimate of SNR 330a when STA 220 transmits to AP 210. The same is true for SINR 330b. PER 330c can be estimated using the acknowledgement 225 packets that are sent back from STA 220 to AP 210 after transmission from AP 210. This PER 330c estimate is also used as an input 330 to joint rate and power control method 310. Joint rate and power control method 310 selects a transmit power 340 and rate 320 pair from an ordered list. The ordered list is formed by listing all transmit rates from the least to the maximum along with the maximum transmit power, corresponding to indices 1-5 of FIG. 4.
Shoemake further teaches (i.e., Figures 5A-5B and paragraphs 0007, 0037-0038) To reduce the interference generated, the wireless device can reduce its transmit power level. However, there is a level below which the transmit power cannot be reduced, because below this level the device that is being transmitted to will no longer be able to decode the transmission successfully. Thus it is desirable to transmit at or just above this threshold to minimize the amount of interference that other devices in the area experience as a result of the transmission. When PER 530 increases above a threshold, T.sub.PER, adaptive rate and power control method 510 decreases the index of FIG. 4, which in turn has the effect of decreasing PER 530. Some embodiments increase the index into the table of FIG. 4 when PER 530 is very low (below a lower threshold). FIG. 5B shows an exemplary flow diagram for the embodiment shown in FIG. 5A. A determination is made in block 515 as to whether or not the PER is above an upper, predetermined threshold. If the PER is above the upper, predetermined threshold at 515, then the present invention can decrease the index in block 520. The index from block 520 is then used in block 525 to obtain a rate and power pair from a rate and power table, such as that shown in FIG. 4. Alternatively, and/or in addition to the foregoing (as indicated by the dashed lines), the PER may also be compared to a lower threshold, as shown in block 540. If the PER is not below the lower, predetermined threshold, the present invention returns to 515. However, if the PER is below the lower, predetermined threshold at 540, then the present invention can increase the index in block 545.
PNG
media_image4.png
650
577
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Whereas Svantesson et al. teaches (i.e., Figure 2 and text) beamforming weights generally refer to how to weight the signals received and/or transmitted to and/or from different antennas. This weighting of signals corresponds to forming a spatial signature that may match the channel and may change (e.g., improve and/or optimize) a performance metric. Examples of performance metrics include throughput and signal to noise plus interference ratio (SNIR). For a RDB system with allocations that are dynamic in time, frequency, and or space, a single MCS per allocation may not be optimal.
Therefore, the Examiner would like to point out that the prior arts as a whole substantially teach to use data based on sensors to select a threshold value and adjust the communication setting (i.e., power setting).
It is the Examiner’s conclusion that the claims of the present application, as presented, are not patentably distinct over the prior arts. Applicants are encouraged to formulate claim language that clearly defines the novelty of the application. Prior art rejections are maintained in view of remarks made herein. See prior office actions. If Applicants believe an interview with the Examiner might be useful, then Applicants are welcome to contact the Examiner with proposed amendments for a discussion.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-17 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
For example, claim 1 recites:
PNG
media_image5.png
786
651
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image6.png
97
652
media_image6.png
Greyscale
The claim states, “…obtain sensor data…the sensor is a weather sensor…or…the sensor is an antenna movement sensor…and use the obtained sensor data produced by the sensor to select a threshold value…”
This limitation is not clear.
Which sensor data is used and what sensor is used when selecting the threshold value?
There is lack of proper antecedent basis for this limitation.
Are there two separate sensors? One for the weather and one for the movement?
How exactly is the sensor data used to select a threshold value?
A threshold is a range or a limit that is normally preset or adaptively set. It is not clear how the sensor data can be used to select a threshold value.
Essential elements are missing from the claim.
Independent claim 23 is rejected for similar reasons. Respective dependent claims 2-17, 21 and 22 are rejected at least based on dependency.
Corrections are requested.
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 MUJTABA M CHAUDRY whose telephone number is (571)272-3817. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5:30pm.
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, Albert DeCady can be reached at 571-272-3819. 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.
MUJTABA M. CHAUDRY
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2112
/MUJTABA M CHAUDRY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2112
Prosecution Insights