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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 9-6-2024 is being considered by the examiner.
Examiner’s Note: For applicant’s benefit portions of the cited reference(s) have been cited to aid in the review of the rejection(s). While every attempt has been made to be thorough and consistent within the rejection it is noted that the PRIOR ART MUST BE CONSIDERED IN ITS ENTIRETY, INCLUDING DISCLOSURES THAT TEACH AWAY FROM THE CLAIMS. See MPEP 2141.02 VI.
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) XXXX is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson, et. al., U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2012/0319900, published December 20, 2012.
As per claims 1, 15 and 29, Johansson discloses a method for beam forming using an antenna array (240) comprising N > 1 dual-polarized elements (242(0):242(N-1)), each dual-polarized element (242(0):242(N 1)) comprising a first element having a first polarization A and a second element having a second polarization B, each first and second element having an individually controllable phase (Johansson, Fig. 3), the method comprising:
generating (S104) a dual-polarized beam (260) by applying a first beamformer wA and a second beamformer wB to individually control the phase of the dual-polarized elements (242(0):242(N 1)), (Johansson, ¶51)
wherein the first beamformer wA is formed from a first base beamformer wi of the first polarization A by an additional individual phase having been added to the first base beamformer wj for each element of the first polarization A, and the second beamformer wB is formed from a second base beamformer wB of the second polarization B by an additional individual phase having been added to the second base beamformer wB for each element of the second polarization B. (Johansson, ¶54-55).
Johansson fails to explicitly state a “base beamformer” however Johansson shows distribution networks from which the phase shifts originate. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use a base beamformer, as Applicant has not disclosed that it solves any stated problem of the prior art or is for any particular purpose. It appears that the invention would perform equally well as the invention disclosed by Johansson in providing the proper output beam.
As per claims 2 and 16, Johansson further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a beam offset A or AA,AB is applied to at least one of the first beamformer wA and the second beamformer wB (Johansson, ¶62).
As per claim 3, Johansson further discloses the method according to claim of claim 2, wherein the beam offset A or AA,AB is applied to the at least one of the first beamformer wA and the second beamformer wB by being applied to at least one of the base beamformers before the first beamformer wA and the second beamformer wB are formed from the base beamformers (Johannson, ¶62).
As per claims 4 and 18, Johansson further discloses the method according to claim 2, wherein one of the base beamformers has a pointing direction 01 relative a boresight pointing direction of the antenna array (240), and wherein the beam offset A is related to said pointing direction 0 (Johansson, ¶54-55 and 62).
Although Johansson fails to explicitly disclose the same formula, it is well within the skill of a person in the art to determine how pointing direction and offset should be related to achieve a desired beam.
As per claim 5, Johansson further discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the second base beamformer wb is different from the first base beamformer wb (Johansson, ¶50).
As per claim 13, Johansson further discloses the method according to claim 1,wherein the additional individual phase for each element of the first polarization A and the additional individual phase for each element of the second polarization B are determined according to a target function, wherein the target function at least specifies Half Power Beam Width of a target antenna radiation pattern (Johansson, ¶59).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Johansson in view of Goransson, U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0149907, filed April 11, 2019.
As per claim 6, Johansson discloses the method of claim 1 but fails to disclose selecting from DFT base beam vectors.
Goransson teaches selection from DFT vectors (¶6).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use DFT vectors in order to gain the benefit of maximum gain as taught by Goransson.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-12, 14, 21 and 22 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 and is provided on form PTO-892.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS E WINDRICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6417. The examiner can normally be reached M-F ~7-3:30.
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, Jack Keith can be reached at 5712726878. 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.
/MARCUS E WINDRICH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3646
Prosecution Insights