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 .
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 19-20 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 Claim 19, “execution of instructions” should probably be corrected to ---execution of the instructions--- because “instructions” has antecedent basis.
Remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 15-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 2022/0150719).
For Claims 1 and 19, Park teaches a method and an apparatus comprising: one or more processors in communication with a non-transitory storage medium storing instructions (see paragraphs 21, 62-64), the method comprising:
receiving, at an aerial node from a first communication device, information specific to the first communication device (see paragraphs 12-14);
adjusting a location of the aerial node to a new location determined based, at least in part, on the information (see paragraphs 18, 105: positioning, beam alignment); and
transmitting, to the first communication device, an indication of a new beam alignment direction, the new beam alignment direction determined based on the new location of the aerial node (see paragraphs 119, 122-123).
For Claim 15, Park teaches a method comprising:
Transmitting, to an aerial node, information specific to a first communication device, wherein the information is used to determine a new location of the aerial node (see paragraphs 12-14); and
receiving, an indication of a new beam alignment direction, the new beam alignment direction determined based on the new location of the aerial node (see paragraphs 119, 122-123).
For Claims 2, 16, and 20, Park teaches the method, wherein the information indicates a feature specific to the first communication device (see paragraphs 13-14).
For Claims 3 and 17, Park teaches the method, wherein the feature relates to an antenna array structure (see paragraphs 13-14).
For Claims 4 and 18, Park teaches the method, wherein the information indicates a measurement made at the first communication device (see paragraphs 105, 119-120).
For Claim 5, Park teaches the method, further comprising:
configuring each communication device of a plurality of communication devices, wherein the plurality of communication devices includes the first communication device (see paragraphs 18, 105);
receiving, from the each communication device, corresponding information specific to the each communication device (see paragraphs 18, 105); and
transmitting, to the each communication device, a corresponding angular-specific configuration determined based on the corresponding information specific to the each communication device (see paragraphs 101, 106, 109).
For Claim 6, Park teaches the method, wherein the each communication device comprises a corresponding transmit receive point (see paragraph 67).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0150719) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Ravishankar et al. (US 2021/0092640).
For Claim 7, though Park teaches that UEs are part of the network (see paragraph 65), Park as applied above is not explicit as to, but Ravishankar teaches the method, wherein the each communication device comprises a corresponding user equipment (see paragraphs 42, 47: user terminals; paragraphs 166-167: signaling).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to include UEs as in Ravishankar when managing aerial nodes as in Park. The motivation would be to improve communications throughput by integrating communication devices in the beam alignment process.
Claim(s) 8-9 and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0150719) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of Upadhya et al. (US 2022/0352973).
For Claim 8, Park as applied above is not explicit as to, but Upadhya teaches the method, wherein the corresponding angular-specific configuration comprises a range including a minimum elevation angle and a maximum elevation angle (see paragraphs 5, 181-184).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide a range of acceptable angles as in Upadhya when arranging the aerial nodes as in Park. The motivation would be to improve flexibility when adjusting the configuration.
For Claim 9, Park as applied above is not explicit as to, but Upadhya teaches the method, wherein the minimum elevation angle and the maximum elevation angle comprise elevation angles (see paragraphs 181-184).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide a range of acceptable angles as in Upadhya when arranging the aerial nodes as in Park. The motivation would be to improve flexibility when adjusting the configuration.
For Claim 13, Park as applied above is not explicit as to, but Upadhya teaches the method, wherein the minimum elevation angle and the maximum elevation angle comprise azimuth angles (see paragraphs 181-184).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to provide a range of acceptable angles as in Upadhya when arranging the aerial nodes as in Park. The motivation would be to improve flexibility when adjusting the configuration.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0150719) and Upadhya et al. (US 2022/0352973) as applied to claims 1, 5, and 8-9 above, and further in view of Ravishankar et al. (US 2021/0092640).
For Claim 10, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Ravishankar teaches the method, wherein the minimum elevation angle is determined in a manner that obviates a remote interference problem (see paragraphs 166-167).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to manage interference as in Ravishankar when managing aerial nodes as in Park. The motivation would be to improve communications throughput by avoiding interference.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (US 2022/0150719) and Upadhya et al. (US 2022/0352973) as applied to claims 1, 5, and 8 above, and further in view of Yiu et al. (WO 2018/063436).
For Claim 14, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Yiu teaches the method, further comprising:
receiving, from a communication device among the plurality of communication devices, an indication that an angle cannot be maintained within the range (see paragraphs 32, 67-68, and 70-71); and
transmitting, to the communication device, an instruction to switch from communicating with a second communication device to communicating with a third communication device (see paragraph 72 and above cited paragraphs).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to manage a handing over as in Yiu when implementing the system of Park and Upadhya. The motivation would be to maintain communications even as conditions in the network change.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 11 and 12 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wu et al. (US 2019/0058523) teaches a system in which drones adjust their position based on minimizing interference. Piolini (US 6337853) teaches a system in which a device is handed over when angular separation cannot be maintained. Lo et al. (US 2022/0294541) teaches a system for measuring power based on beam directions.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 4/23/2026
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights