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 Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-5, 7-19, and 21-26 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
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.
3. Claims 1-5, 7-19, and 21-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (US 2019/0238658) in view of Shur (US 2023/0352853).
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu teaches that a method for performance by user equipment for increasing a signal strength of line-of-sight communication of a radio signal from the user equipment at a receiving communication device (Fig. 4, 5, 7, abstract, and page 1, paragraphs 5 – 8, where teaches determining an non line-of-sight (NLOS) path based on the vehicle data and the sensor data so that the NLOS path avoids a potential blockage, and determining whether the NLOS path is predicted to succeed based on a beam transmission percentage satisfying a threshold percentage, and responsive to the NLOS path being predicted to succeed, performing beam alignment between the first vehicle and the second vehicle based on the NLOS path before the potential blockage is predicted to occur). Shimizu teaches that determining an attenuation characteristic of a line-of-sight communication channel between the user equipment and the receiving communication device based on at least one of an obstacle inside the line-of- sight communication channel or an obstacle in a surrounding of the line-of-sight communication channel (Fig. 4, 5, 7, page 1, paragraphs 5 – 8, and pages 9, paragraphs 93 – 100, where teaches the blockage may occur due to a combination of a low antenna height on either the first vehicle and/or the second vehicle and a high mobility of the vehicle RSU and/or the first vehicle, and determining whether a blockage is predicted to occur based on wireless messages from the first vehicle and from the blocker, and the blocker may be equipped with a DSRC-compliant GPS unit and may provide blocker vehicle data to the first vehicle, which the path module combines with the vehicle data and the sensor data to determine whether a blockage would occur at the time the beam is intended to be transmitted), and adjusting an antenna radiation pattern of the user equipment based on the attenuation characteristic of the line-of-sight communication channel for increasing the signal strength of line-of-sight communication (Fig. 4, 5, 7, page 1, paragraphs 5 – 8, and pages 9, paragraphs 93 – pages 10, paragraphs 109, where teaches the beam alignment module adapts a transmission scheme that includes modulation, error correction, and/or beam width adjustment based on a path length and a reflection loss of the beam when the beam is reflected, and the blockage may occur due to a combination of a low antenna height on either the first vehicle and/or the second vehicle and a high mobility of the vehicle RSU and/or the first vehicle, and determining whether a blockage is predicted to occur based on wireless messages from the first vehicle and from the blocker). Shimizu does not specifically teach the limitation “the attenuation characteristic is dependent on a reflected/transmitted radiation, and adjust an antenna radiation pattern of user equipment based on the attenuation characteristic of the line-of-sight communication channel for increasing he signal strength of line-of-sight communication”. However, Shur teaches the limitation “the attenuation characteristic is dependent on a reflected/transmitted radiation, and adjust an antenna radiation pattern of user equipment based on the attenuation characteristic of the line-of-sight communication channel for increasing he signal strength of line-of-sight communication” (Fig. 1, pages 2, paragraphs 24 - 25 and pages 2, paragraphs 41 - pages 3, paragraphs 46, where teaches attenuation characteristics, sub-THz and/or THz communication may generally occur over paths that are “line-of-sight”, i.e., without obstacles between the transmitting and receiving antennas, and sub-THz and/or THz communication may be established or facilitated by adjusting a radiation pattern of the transmitting and/or receiving antenna(s) to achieve such line-of-sight communication, and the radiation patterns may be adjusted so that respective main lobes of the transmitting and receiving antennas are aligned. For example, the radiation patterns may be adjusted by adjusting an orientation of the transmitting or receiving antenna, and the radiation patterns may be adjusted electronically by steering the main lobe via, for example, a phased array, and increased carrier frequencies are also subject to increased signal attenuation, thus reducing an allowable distance between transmitting and receiving antennas, means increasing signal strength). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the Shimizu’s communication performance as taught by Shur, provide the motivation to achieve improving communication quality in order to adjust antenna radiation pattern in line-of-sight communication.
Regarding claim 2, Shimizu teaches that obtaining information about an environment of the user equipment, and determining an environmental model (generating a map that identifies objects in an environment), determining the attenuation characteristic of the line-of-sight communication channel is further based on the environmental model (Fig. 4, 5, 7, page 1, paragraphs 5 – 8, and pages 9, paragraphs 93 – pages 10, paragraphs 109).
Regarding claim 3, Shimizu teaches that the information about the environment comprises dynamic information, and wherein the environmental model is a predicted environmental model (Fig. 4, 5, 7, page 1, paragraphs 5 – 8, and pages 9, paragraphs 93 – pages 10, paragraphs 109).
Regarding claim 4, Shimizu teaches that the adjusting of the antenna radiation pattern comprises adjusting an angle of departure of a beam (beam alignment) of the antenna radiation pattern (Fig. 4, 5, 7, page 1, paragraphs 5 – 8, and pages 9, paragraphs 93 – pages 10, paragraphs 109).
Regarding claim 5, Shimizu teaches that the adjusting of the antenna radiation pattern comprises adjusting a beam width of a beam of the antenna radiation pattern (Fig. 4, 5, 7, page 1, paragraphs 5 – 8, and pages 9, paragraphs 93 – pages 10, paragraphs 109).
Regarding claim 7, Shimizu teaches that determining a usage time for the antenna radiation pattern based on the predicted environmental model (Fig. 5, 6, pages 4, paragraphs 37 – 40, and pages 8, paragraphs 86 – pages 9, paragraphs 92).
Regarding claim 8, Shimizu teaches that the dynamic information is information about a movement speed of the user equipment, an obstacle in the environment and/or the communication device (Fig. 4, 5, 7, page 1, paragraphs 5 – 8, and pages 9, paragraphs 93 – pages 10, paragraphs 109).
Regarding claim 9, Shimizu teaches that the dynamic information is information about a planned route of the user equipment, an obstacle in the environment and/or the communication device (Fig. 4, 5, 7, page 1, paragraphs 5 – 8, and pages 9, paragraphs 93 – pages 10, paragraphs 109).
Regarding claim 10, Shimizu teaches that adjusting a transmission parameter based on the adjusted antenna radiation pattern (beam adjustment and alignment) (Fig. 4, 5, 7, page 1, paragraphs 5 – 8, and pages 9, paragraphs 93 – pages 10, paragraphs 109).
Regarding claim 11, Shimizu teaches that generating a communication zone message comprising information about the attenuation characteristic of the line-of-sight communication channel (page 1, paragraphs 5 – 8, Fig. 3, 5, 7, pages 6, paragraphs 61 – 67 and pages 8, paragraphs 88 – 91), transmitting the communication zone message to the communication device (page 1, paragraphs 5 – 8, Fig. 3, 5, 7, pages 6, paragraphs 61 – 67 and pages 8, paragraphs 88 – 91).
Regarding claim 12, Shimizu and Shur teach all the limitations as discussed in claim 1. Furthermore, Shimizu further teaches that receiving a communication zone message comprising information about an attenuation characteristic of a line-of-sight communication channel between the communication device and the user equipment (page 1, paragraphs 5 – 8, Fig. 3, 5, 7, pages 6, paragraphs 61 – 67 and pages 8, paragraphs 88 – 91, where teaches performing beam alignment between the first vehicle and the second vehicle based on a line-of sight (LOS) path, and the one or more wireless messages include at least one of a dedicated short range communication message (DSRC), a long-term evolution vehicle to everything (LTE-V2X) message, and a 802.11p message, and the RSU may transmit DSRC messages, which typically have a maximum range of about 1,000 meters, and determining whether surrounding objects have surface areas that are good for reflecting beams, and NLOS path may include reflecting a beam off of a reflector to avoid a blocker that creates the potential blockage).
Regarding claim 13, Shimizu and Shur teach all the limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 12. Furthermore, Shimizu further teaches that one or more interfaces to communicate with a communication device or user equipment (Fig. 1, 3 and page 1, paragraphs 5 – 8).
Regarding claim 14, Shimizu teaches that a transportation vehicle comprising the apparatus (Fig. 1, 3).
Regarding claim 15, Shimizu teaches that a non-transitory computer readable medium including a computer program having a program code for performing, when the computer program is executed on a computer, a processor, or a programmable hardware component (Fig. 1, 2 and pages 2, paragraphs 9 – 11).
Regarding claim 16, Shimizu and Shur teach all the limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 2.
Regarding claim 17, Shimizu and Shur teach all the limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 3.
Regarding claim 18, Shimizu and Shur teach all the limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 4.
Regarding claim 19, Shimizu and Shur teach all the limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 5.
Regarding claim 21, Shimizu and Shur teach all the limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 7.
Regarding claim 22, Shimizu and Shur teach all the limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 8.
Regarding claim 23, Shimizu and Shur teach all the limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 9.
Regarding claim 24, Shimizu and Shur teach all the limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 10.
Regarding claim 25, Shimizu and Shur teach all the limitations as discussed in claims 1 and 11.
Regarding claim 26, Shimizu and Shur teach all the limitations as discussed in claims 12 and 13.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 6 and 20 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.
The prior art of record fails to disclose the limitation “determining a radiopaque area of the line-of-sight communication channel based on the environmental model, and in response to the radiopaque area exceeds exceeding a threshold, adjusting the antenna radiation pattern to increase the signal strength of the radio signal at the receiving communication device based on the radiopaque area or terminating a transmission of the radio signal” as specified the claims.
5. 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Shimizu et al. (US 10,098,014) discloses Beam Alignment Using Shared Deiving Intention for Vehicular MMWave Communication.
PFADLER et al. (US 2022/0140873) discloses Vehicle. Apparatus. Method, and Computer Program for a Vehicle in a Mobile Communication System.
Information regarding...Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system... at 866-217-9197 (toll-free)."
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN J LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-7880. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8:00am-5:00pm).
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, Yuwen Pan can be reached on 571-272-7855. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO
Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
J.L
September 19, 2026
John J Lee
/JOHN J LEE/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights