DETAILED ACTION
This is in response to the Applicant's arguments and amendments filed on 04 June 2024 in which claims 1-7, 9-20 are currently pending and claim 8 has been cancelled.
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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement, filed on 04 June 2024, 25 August 2025, have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 form or PTO/SB/08A and 08B forms).
Claim Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 10 is directed to a “beam scanning apparatus”. However, the body of the claim contains no clear structure or elements. Rather, the memory and processor elements are recited in the preamble while the body of the claim contains a series of steps. It is suggested to positively recite the memory and processor elements in the body of the claim.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 7, 9, 10, 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 2, 12, 13, 14 respectively of copending Application No. 18/717,675 in view of Tullberg et al. (PG Pub US 2020/0350954 A1).
For claim 1, claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/717,675 teaches a beam scanning method.
acquiring position information of a target User Equipment (UE) as in the application corresponds to the limitation “acquiring position … User Equipment (UE)” (claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/717,675 line 2);
determining an optimal beam corresponding to the target UE based on the obstacle information and the position information of the target UE as in the application corresponds to the limitation “determining a first … target UE” (claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/717,675 line 3).
However, copending Application No. 18/717,675 does not explicitly disclose acquiring obstacle information within a coverage area.
Nevertheless, Tullberg discloses “the wireless transmission device 100 may detect an obstacle .. with respect to the wireless reception device” [0043].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to acquire obstacle information within a coverage area because “so that the obstacle no longer within the transmission area of the one or more beams, and the one or more beams may thus continue to be transmitted at the default power level” [0011].
For claim 7, claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/717,675 teaches receiving first position information reported by the target UE; and taking the first position information as the position information of the target UE (claim 2 of copending Application No. 18/717,675 lines 3-4).
For claim 9, claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/717,675 and Tullberg teaches a non-volatile or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing one or more programs.
acquire obstacle information within a coverage area and position information of a target User Equipment (UE) as in the application corresponds to the limitation “acquire position .. User Equipment (UE)” (claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/717,675 line 4 and Tullberg [0043]);
determine an optimal beam corresponding to the target UE based on the obstacle information and the position information of the target UE as in the application corresponds to the limitation “determine a first … target UE” (claim 12 of copending Application No. 18/717,675 line 5).
For claim 10, claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/717,675 and Tullberg teaches a beam scanning apparatus.
acquire obstacle information within a coverage area and position information of a target User Equipment (UE) as in the application corresponds to the limitation “acquire position .. User Equipment (UE)” (claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/717,675 line 5 and Tullberg [0043]);
determine an optimal beam corresponding to the target UE based on the obstacle information and the position information of the target UE as in the application corresponds to the limitation “determine a first … target UE” (claim 13 of copending Application No. 18/717,675 line 6).
For claim 18, claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/717,675 teaches receive first position information reported by the target UE; and take the first position information as the position information of the target UE (claim 14 of copending Application No. 18/717,675 lines 3-4).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
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 (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.
Claims 1-2, 7, 9, 10, 13, 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tullberg et al. (PG Pub US 2020/0350954 A1) in view of Franke et al. (PG Pub US 2021/0409967 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 9, 10, Tulberg discloses a method, a beam scanning apparatus, and a non-volatile or non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (fig. 1).
acquire obstacle information within a coverage area (“the wireless transmission device 100 may detect an obstacle .. with respect to the wireless reception device” [0043], “transmission area” [0045]) and position information of a target User Equipment (UE) (“a location of a wireless reception device is established” [0059], “The wireless reception device may be a UE” [0041]);
determine an optimal beam corresponding to the target UE based on the obstacle information and the position information of the target UE (“when it is detected that the obstacle at least partially blocks the one or more beams with respect to the wireless reception device, an alternative beam direction may be used for each of the one or more beams” [0046]).
However, Tullberg does not explicitly disclose acquire position information.
Nevertheless, Franke discloses “the s-gNB may use the beam report provided by the UE to estimate the UE's location” [0111].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to acquire position information because it will “introduce new useful schemes for mobile networks employing beamforming, on how to combine positioning reference signal transmission in both downlink and uplink directions with all details necessary to integrate with beam management and beamforming” [0030].
Regarding claims 2, 13, Tullberg, Franke discloses everything claimed as applied above. In addition, Tullberg discloses transmit a detection signal within the coverage area, and determine first obstacle information within the coverage area based on an echo of the detection signal; and take the first obstacle information as the obstacle information within the coverage area (“one or more detection pulses are transmitted and their echo is monitored prior to the transmission phase to detect the change in the electromagnetic environment associated with the one or more beams” [0047]).
Regarding claims 7, 18, Tullberg, Franke discloses everything claimed as applied above. Further, Franke discloses receive first position information reported by the target UE; and take the first position information as the position information of the target UE (“the s-gNB may use the beam report provided by the UE to estimate the UE's location” [0111]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 11-12, 14-17, 19-20 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTINE D FUQUA whose telephone number is (571)270-1664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 AM - 6 PM EST with every other Friday off.
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.
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.
CHRISTINE DUONG FUQUA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2462
/CHRISTINE T DUONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462 04/16/2026
Prosecution Insights