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 .
Status of Claims
The following is a non-final, first action on the merits, in response to application filed September 01, 2024. Claims 1-16, are currently pending.
Priority
Certified copy of priority document SE 2250322-1 dated March 14, 2022, is acknowledged which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs) submitted on 9/03/2024, is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5-7, 15, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bengtsson et al (hereinafter Bengtsson) (US 2022/0038170, admitted prior art IDS).
Regarding claims 1, 15, Bengtsson discloses a method, performed by a network node (the method 40 of paras. 0044-0081 and figure 1, and a radio interface for connectivity), the method comprising:
a downlink signal comprises a first downlink polarization and a second downlink polarization (para. 0047);
a first and a second downlink polarization is implicit in (paras. 0048 and 0049), that disclose that the polarization can be controlled and that polarization multiplexing may be used, respectively; see also (para. 0050), on the ratio of signal powers between orthogonal polarization planes and (para. 0057), and an uplink signal comprising a first uplink polarization and a second uplink polarization (para. 0071);
wherein the downlink signal has a measured downlink characteristic, the measured downlink characteristic comprising a downlink amplitude ratio between the amplitude of the downlink signal in the first downlink polarization and the amplitude of the downlink signal in the second downlink polarization, and the measured downlink characteristic comprising a downlink phase difference between the phase of the downlink signal in the first downlink polarization and the phase of the downlink signal in the second downlink polarization (the feature does not limit the method carried out by the network node; it is, nevertheless, noted that said feature is implicit from the effects of channel propagation; see also (para. 0050);
wherein the uplink signal has a transmitted uplink characteristic, the transmitted uplink characteristic comprising an uplink amplitude ratio between the amplitude of the uplink signal in the first uplink polarization and the amplitude of the uplink signal in the second uplink polarization, and the transmitted uplink characteristic comprising an uplink phase difference between the phase of the uplink signal in the first uplink polarization and the phase of the uplink signal in the second uplink polarization (the feature does not limit the method carried out by the network node; it is, nevertheless, noted that said feature is implicit from (para. (0073), because any signal transmitted using two polarizations will have a given amplitude ratio and phase difference between said two polarizations);
wherein the transmitted uplink characteristic is the same as the measured downlink characteristic (the feature does not limit the scope of the claim, because it relates to an operation at the wireless terminal, which is outside the scope of the method performed at the network node). Bengtsson however, does not expressly show, transmitting, to a wireless device, control signaling indicating to the wireless device that, upon receiving the downlink signal from the network node, the wireless device is to respond by transmitting the uplink signal. Bengtsson however discloses respective methods 20; 40 according to first and second aspects performed by a wireless terminal 10 and an access node 30 in the wireless communication network 10, 30. These methods 20; 40 is that a wireless terminal 10 equipped with dual polarized antennas can be expected to track an arbitrary polarization defined by the access node 30. As indicated in fig. 1, the at least one downlink polarization may comprise at least one polarization of at least one polarization-controlled downlink signal dedicated to the wireless terminal 10 (paras. 0044-0048), except transmitting, from network node to a wireless device, control signaling in order to indicate to the wireless device to carry out a particular method. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify network node to respond by transmitting an uplink signal upon receiving a downlink signal since it was known in the art Bengtsson that by doing so would allow wireless device to respond by transmitting an uplink signal upon receiving a downlink signal to perform the method.
Regarding claim 3, Bengtsson discloses transmitting, to the wireless device, the downlink signal (polarization control may refer to a property or capacity of a radio node, such as a wireless terminal or an access node, of a wireless network to transmit and receive radio signals having a specified polarization state) (paras. 0047, 0048, 0051),
receiving, from the wireless device, the uplink signal (paras. 0071, 0072, 0073),
Bengtsson does not expressly show determining an angular positioning of the wireless device based on the transmitted uplink characteristic of the uplink signal. However, Access Point Customer Premises Equipment (AP/CPE) antenna-apertures are well known in the art and are capable of electronic beam steering in azimuth and/or elevation a beam that can be steered to any angular position within a predefined angular range . It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify angular position of the wireless device by design, since it was known in the art that by doing so one would be able to determine angular position based on uplink signal characteristic.
Regarding claim 5, Bengtsson discloses wherein the one or more downlink signals are carried over wide beams (the polarization-multiplexed downlink broadcast signal may be broadcasted during beam sweeps (interpreted as wide, wide is not defined) (paras. 0013, 0024).
Regarding claim 6, Bengtsson discloses wherein the one or more downlink signals comprise reference signals (the at least one downlink polarization may comprise at least one polarization of a polarization-controlled pilot signal, such as the Channel State Information-Reference Signal, CSI-RS) (para. 0049).
Regarding claim 7, Bengtsson discloses wherein each of the one or more uplink signals is the same signal as the corresponding downlink signal (at least one uplink polarization of the at least one uplink communication to correspond to particular offset values with respect to the reference polarization. Thus, even if the uplink and/or downlink polarizations should be subject to changes due to polarization effects, the at least one uplink polarization is changed consistently. For instance, given that the at least one uplink polarization comprises two uplink polarizations, then both of these uplink polarizations may be subjected to the same polarization effects so that they may be rotated consistently, preserving a relative polarization offset with one another) (para. 0113).
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.
Claim 5, 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.
The term “wide” in claim 5, is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “wide” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. How wide the beams are or can be, is undefined without establishing limit, the claim regarded as open ended.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 4, 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.
Claim 8-14, 16, are allowable.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUTBUDDIN GHULAMALI whose telephone number is (571) 272-3014. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30am to 4:00pm.
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, Chieh Fan can be reached at 571 272 3042. 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.
/QUTBUDDIN GHULAMALI/
Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 2632.
Prosecution Insights