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
Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement submitted has been considered by the Examiner and made of record in the application file.
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 11-16 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.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the video encoding device" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-3,6-8,10-13,16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Eidson USPN 2013/0272437.
Consider claim 1, Eidson discloses a method, wherein the method is applied to a transmitting end and the method comprises: obtaining at least two signals through a first channel (see fig. 1; [0022]: “… index for the beam of both antenna arrays that is communicating with mobile terminal 102 is "b," as shown in FIG. 1. Similarly, mobile terminal 104 is in communication with beams of index "c" of both antenna arrays 130, 140 …”); and sending the at least two signals to a first receiving end and a second receiving end using a first antenna array, wherein a first signal of the at least two signals is sent to the first receiving end (see fig. 1; [0022]), a second signal of the at least two signals is sent to the second receiving end (see fig. 1; [0022]),
PNG
media_image1.png
778
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Eidson does not explicitly disclose sub-bands carrying each of the at least two first signals are different.
In the related field of endeavor, Stirling-Gallacher discloses sub-bands carrying each of the at least two first signals are different (see [0049]: “…transmits beamformed broadcast signals on different frequency subbands with different transmission beams on different subbands. As an example, a first transmission beam 340 is transmitted on subband F1, a second transmission beam 342 is transmitted on subband F2, a third transmission beam 344 is transmitted on subband F3, and so on. Each transmission beam is used in a different subband…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter to combine the MIMO array transmission of Eidson and the different frequency subband signals of Stirling-Gallacher in order to arrive at the instant recitation to provide optimal wireless communication.
Consider claim 2 as applied to respective claim, Eidson as modified discloses sending, to the first receiving end using a second antenna array, a third signal wherein a third sub-band carrying the third signal is different from a first sub-band carrying the first signal (see fig. 1; [0022]: array 140 sends beam b to mobile terminal 102).
Consider claim 3 as applied to respective claim, Eidson as modified discloses, where a direction of an i.sup.th beam formed by the first antenna array is the same as a direction of an i.sup.th beam formed by the second antenna array, i is an integer greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to L, L is a quantity of beams formed by the first antenna array, and the i.sup.th beams formed by the first and second arrays carry signals to a same i.sup.th receiving end (see fig. 1; [0022]: beam b from both antenna arrays 130 and 140 transmit in same direction to mobile terminal 102).
Consider claim 6 as applied to respective claim, Eidson as modified discloses, where a bandwidth scheduled by the first antenna array is the same as a bandwidth scheduled by the second antenna array; or a bandwidth scheduled by the first antenna array is different from a bandwidth scheduled by the second antenna array; or a bandwidth scheduled by the first antenna array partially overlaps a bandwidth scheduled by the second antenna array (see e.g. CN 113258307 herein with translation fig. 8 and associated text: “…wide beam working bandwidth of this example is 3.36-3.59GHz, the working bandwidth of the narrow beam is 3.35-3.6GHz the bandwidth of the two is substantially the same…” well-known in the art).
Examiner Note: See detailed rejection of independent claims 1 and 7 with regards to any remaining independent claim rejections.
Consider claim 7, Eidson discloses a method, where the method is applied to a transmitting end and the method comprises: obtaining a first signal through a first channel, and obtaining a second signal through a second channel (see fig. 1; [0022]: “…example of FIG. 1, beams 110(b) and 120(b) are configured to provide acceptable gain in the direction of mobile terminal 102. In this case, the index for the beam of both antenna arrays that is communicating with mobile terminal 102 is "b," as shown in FIG. 1. Similarly, mobile terminal 104 is in communication with beams of index "c" of both antenna arrays 130, 140…”)); and sending the first signal to a first receiving end using the first antenna array, and sending the second signal to the first receiving end using the second antenna array (see fig. 1; [0022]); wherein a first sub-band carrying the first signal is different from a second sub-band carrying the second signal, and a first direction of a first beam that is formed by the first antenna array and that carries the first signal is the same as a second direction of a second beam that is formed by the second antenna array and that carries the second signal (see fig. 1; [0022]).
PNG
media_image2.png
778
673
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Eidson does not explicitly disclose wherein a first sub-band carrying the first signal is different from a second sub-band carrying the second signal.
In the related field of endeavor, Stirling-Gallacher discloses wherein a first sub-band carrying the first signal is different from a second sub-band carrying the second signal (see [0049]: “…transmits beamformed broadcast signals on different frequency subbands with different transmission beams on different subbands. As an example, a first transmission beam 340 is transmitted on subband F1, a second transmission beam 342 is transmitted on subband F2, a third transmission beam 344 is transmitted on subband F3, and so on. Each transmission beam is used in a different subband…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter to combine the MIMO array transmission of Eidson and the different frequency subband signals of Stirling-Gallacher in order to arrive at the instant recitation to provide optimal wireless communication.
Consider claim 8 as applied to respective claim, Eidson as modified discloses, where a first quantity of sub-bands corresponding to the first antenna array is the same as a second quantity of sub-bands corresponding to the second antenna array (see fig. 1: 4 beams 4 subbands).
Consider claim 10 as applied to respective claim, Eidson as modified discloses, where the first channel is a digital channel between a baseband digital port and a radio frequency link (see fig. 1: 160 to 150 is digital).
Consider claim 11, Eidson discloses an apparatus comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium coupled to the one or more processors and storing programming for execution by the processors, wherein the programming, when executed by the one or more processors, configures the video encoding device to carry out operations comprising: obtaining at least two signals through a first channel (see fig. 1; [0022]); and sending the at least two signals to a first receiving end and a second receiving end using the first antenna array (see fig. 1; [0022]), wherein a first signal of the at least two signals is sent to the first receiving end, a second signal of the at least two signals is sent to the second receiving end (see fig. 1; [0022]),
PNG
media_image1.png
778
671
media_image1.png
Greyscale
However, Eidson does not explicitly disclose sub-bands carrying each of the at least two first signals are different.
In the related field of endeavor, Stirling-Gallacher discloses sub-bands carrying each of the at least two first signals are different (see [0049]: “…transmits beamformed broadcast signals on different frequency subbands with different transmission beams on different subbands. As an example, a first transmission beam 340 is transmitted on subband F1, a second transmission beam 342 is transmitted on subband F2, a third transmission beam 344 is transmitted on subband F3, and so on. Each transmission beam is used in a different subband…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter to combine the MIMO array transmission of Eidson and the different frequency subband signals of Stirling-Gallacher in order to arrive at the instant recitation to provide optimal wireless communication.
Consider claim 12 as applied to respective claim, Eidson as modified discloses, where to the operations further comprise: sending, to the first receiving end using a second antenna array, a third signal, wherein a third sub-band carrying the third signal is different from a first sub-band carrying the first signal (see fig. 1; [0022]: array 140 sends beam b to mobile terminal 102).
Consider claim 13 as applied to respective claim, Eidson as modified discloses, where a direction of an i.sup.th beam formed by the first antenna array is the same as a direction of an i.sup.th beam formed by the second antenna array, i is an integer greater than or equal to 1 and less than or equal to L, L is a quantity of beams formed by the first antenna array, and the i.sup.th beams formed by the first and second arrays carry signals to a same i.sup.th receiving end (see fig. 1; [0022]: beam b from both antenna arrays 130 and 140 transmit in same direction to mobile terminal 102).
Consider claim 16 as applied to respective claim, Eidson as modified discloses, where a bandwidth scheduled by the first antenna array is the same as a bandwidth scheduled by the second antenna array; or a bandwidth scheduled by the first antenna array is different from a bandwidth scheduled by the second antenna array; or a bandwidth scheduled by the first antenna array partially overlaps a bandwidth scheduled by the second antenna array (see e.g. CN 113258307 herein with translation fig. 8 and associated text: “…wide beam working bandwidth of this example is 3.36-3.59GHz, the working bandwidth of the narrow beam is 3.35-3.6GHz the bandwidth of the two is substantially the same…” well-known in the art).
Consider claim 17, Eidson discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, wherein the computer-readable storage medium is configured to store a computer program; and when the computer program is executed it causes a corresponding device to: obtain a first signal through a first channel, and obtain a second signal through a second channel (see fig. 1; [0022]: “…example of FIG. 1, beams 110(b) and 120(b) are configured to provide acceptable gain in the direction of mobile terminal 102. In this case, the index for the beam of both antenna arrays that is communicating with mobile terminal 102 is "b," as shown in FIG. 1. Similarly, mobile terminal 104 is in communication with beams of index "c" of both antenna arrays 130, 140…”); and send the first signal to a first receiving end using a first antenna array, and send the second signal to the first receiving end using a second antenna array (see fig. 1; [0022]); direction of a second beam that is formed by the second antenna array and that carries the second signal (see fig. 1; [0022]).
PNG
media_image2.png
778
673
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Eidson does not explicitly disclose wherein a first sub-band carrying the first signal is different from a second sub-band carrying the second signal.
In the related field of endeavor, Stirling-Gallacher discloses wherein a first sub-band carrying the first signal is different from a second sub-band carrying the second signal (see [0049]: “…transmits beamformed broadcast signals on different frequency subbands with different transmission beams on different subbands. As an example, a first transmission beam 340 is transmitted on subband F1, a second transmission beam 342 is transmitted on subband F2, a third transmission beam 344 is transmitted on subband F3, and so on. Each transmission beam is used in a different subband…”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at a time before the effective filing date of the claimed subject matter to combine the MIMO array transmission of Eidson and the different frequency subband signals of Stirling-Gallacher in order to arrive at the instant recitation to provide optimal wireless communication.
Consider claim 18 as applied to respective claim, Eidson as modified discloses, where a first quantity of sub-bands corresponding to the first antenna array is the same as a second quantity of sub-bands corresponding to the second antenna array (see fig. 1: 4 beams 4 subbands).
Consider claim 20 as applied to respective claim, Eidson as modified discloses, where the first channel is a digital channel between a baseband digital port and a radio frequency link (see fig. 1: 160 to 150 is digital).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5, 9, 14-15, and 19 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: See respective instant recitation.
Conclusion
Any response to this Office Action should be faxed to (571) 273-8300 or mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the
Examiner should be directed to Fayyaz Alam whose telephone number is (571) 270-1102. The Examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 9:30am to 7:00pm.
If attempts to reach the Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Jeanette Parker can be reached on (571) 270-3647. 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) or 703-305-3028.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist/customer service whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
Fayyaz Alam
May 29, 2026
/FAYYAZ ALAM/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2674
Prosecution Insights