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 .
2. The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it should be submitted on a separate page. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
3. Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1-3, 5, 6, 9-11, 13, 14 and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman 11223408 B2 (cited by applicant) in view of Agrawal WO 2021010760 A1.
6. Consider claim 1. Chapman teaches (fig. 19) an apparatus, comprising: at least one processor (1950) ; and at least one memory (1960) comprising computer program instructions, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to perform: receiving a plurality of input parameters, wherein the input parameters describe a directional portion of a radiation pattern of an antenna array (col 17, lines 31-38…scheduler 1301 then sends information on the selected beam and precoding weights to the beam intensity calculation unit 1302….) and a weighting to be applied to the antenna array; processing the plurality of input parameters (….the beam intensity calculation unit 1302 estimates a spatial distribution of energy…); and providing an output representative of equivalent isotropically radiated power associated with the plurality of input parameters (…the beam intensity calculation unit 1302 estimates a spatial distribution of energy such as the spatial EIRP profile for the suggested beam and temporarily adds this beam intensity pattern, i.e. the spatial EIRP profile into the average spatial EIRP profile..).
Chapman fails to teach processing a plurality of input parameters using a trained neural network. However, Agrawal, from the same field of endeavor, teaches such (see link budget and obstruction parameters analyzed by a learned neural network) for maximum EIRP. It would have been obvious, before the effective date, to use the teachings of Agrawal in Chapman to recalibrate the beamforming faster. Claim 9 is similar in scope and rejected for the same reasons. Method claim 17 is rejected for the same reasons as apparatus claim 1, since claimed elements would perform the steps recited.
7. Regarding claims 2, 10 and 18. Chapman teaches (see col 9, lines 2-28) wherein the plurality of input parameters describe the directional portion by a first angle representative of an azimuth and by a second angle representative of an elevation.
8. Regarding claims 3, 11 and 19. Chapman teaches (see col 17, lines 28-30) wherein the weighting comprises a three-dimensional weighting using a complex weight vector.
9. Regarding claims 5 and 13. Chapman teaches (see col 17, lines 35-36) wherein the output comprises a value of equivalent isotropically radiated power associated with the plurality of input parameters.
10. Regarding claims 6 and 14. Chapman teaches (see col 17, lines 45-57) wherein the processing comprises comparing the equivalent isotropically radiated power associated with the plurality of input parameters to a threshold, wherein the providing output comprises providing a binary indication indicative of a result of the comparing.
11. Claims 4, 12 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman 11223408 B2 (cited by applicant) in view of Agrawal WO 2021010760 A1 further in view of Tamminen Aleksi et al “Antenna radiation pattern prediction with Machine learning (cited by applicant).
12. Regarding claims 4, 12 and 20. The combination of Chapman in view of Agrawal fail to teach wherein the plurality of input parameters are provided to the trained neural network as a single input in matrix form. However, Tamminen teaches such (see section IV, page 435, lines 11-14). It would have been an obvious substitution of one type of trained neural network for another to use Tamminen neural network in Chapman in order to process the parameters faster as the system evolves.
13. Claims 7, 8, 15 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chapman 11223408 B2 (cited by applicant) in view of Agrawal WO 2021010760 A1 further in view of Examiner’s Official Notice
14. Regarding claims 7 and 15. The combination fails to explicitly state wherein the processing comprises performing a calculation of the equivalent isotropically radiated power associated with the plurality of input parameters once per sample. However, the examiner takes official notice this is well known in the art and would have been obvious to design as such in order maximize the efficiency of the beam forming.
15. Regarding claims 8 and 16. The combination fails to explicitly state wherein a sample rate of the sample is configurable from 100 ms to 1 s per sample. However, the examiner takes official notice that this is well known in the art and would have been obvious to design as such in order to maximize the efficiency of the beamforming.
16. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Fofana WO-2021094696 A1 teaches a method for configuring an active antenna network in which each of the antennas comprises at least one radiating element (5.1,.Math.,5.n) and one amplifier (4.1,.Math.,4.n) designed to excite the radiating element. The configuration method comprises a step (E3) of determining turned-off and non-turned-off antennas using energy consumption characteristics of the amplifiers such that, for the non-turned-off antennas, each of the amplifiers operates in a linear regime. A set of complex excitations is calculated by applying a set of conditions comprising a power condition concerning the output power of each amplification corresponding to a non-turned-off antenna. The dynamic selection of an optimal bias voltage allows each amplifier to operate at optimal energy efficiency. The invention also relates to an active antenna network configured by this configuration method and any radiofrequency communication device comprising such an active antenna network.
Wigren WO-202004773 A1 teaches a mechanism for controlling average EIRP of a radio base station. A method is performed by a control device. The method comprises performing control of average EIRP of the radio base station according to a back-off power density control loop. In the back-off power density control loop, a beam width control parameter is used to vary the EIRP generated by an antenna array of the radio base station, whereby the average EIRP is selectively reduced based on the beam width control parameter.
Conclusion
17. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CURTIS A KUNTZ whose telephone number is (571)272-7499. The examiner can normally be reached on M-Th from 530am to 330pm and Fri from 530am to 10am.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew D Anderson, can be reached at telephone number 5712724177. 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 Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center to authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to the USPTO patent electronic filing system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
Examiner interviews are available via a variety of formats. See MPEP § 713.01. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/InterviewPractice.
/CURTIS A KUNTZ/Primary examiner, Art Unit 2646
Prosecution Insights