CTNF 18/857,975 CTNF 96215 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 01/15/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner. Examiner’s Note To help the reader, examiner notes in this detailed action claim language is in bold, strikethrough limitations are not explicitly taught and language added to explain a reference mapping are isolated from quotations via square brackets. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. 07-30-05 The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. 07-30-06 This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “ control unit ” in claim 1-4, 6 which appears to be a processor (0074). “ transmitting unit ” in claim 1, 6 which appears to be a transmitter (0073). “ receiving unit ” in claim 1, 6 which appears to be a receiver (fig 2). Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 Claim(s) 2-3, 6 is/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 2 recites the limitation ‘ a receiving device’ There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because ‘ the receiving device’ was previously claimed. Claim 3 recites the limitation ‘ the receiving array’ . There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there isn’t any ‘ receiving array’ previously claimed. Examiner suggests amending ‘ receiving array’ to ‘receiving antenna array’. Claim 6 recites the limitation ‘ a receiving device’ There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because ‘ the receiving device’ was previously claimed. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 1, 3, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (US 20180152227 hereinafter Frank) in view of Song et al. ( On Spatial Multiplexing of Strong Line-of-Sight MIMO With 3D Antenna Arrangements [NPL, 2015] hereinafter Song) and further in view of Krishnamurthy et al. (WO 2014099346 hereinafter Krishnamurthy) . Regarding claim 1, Frank teaches A transmitting device comprising (fig 5) : a transmitting unit comprising a first antenna array (fig 5) ; and a control unit (0146 “controller 920”) configured to determine a second projection array of a receiving antenna array of a receiving device (0044 “it is not the distance between elements that matters, but a projection of this distance that depends on the relative orientation of the linear arrays at the transmitter and the receiver”; 0047 “the transmitter may know the spacing of the elements d.sub.T and the wavelength λ, the transmitter may not know the range, and furthermore may not know the needed projection of this distance that depends on the relative orientation of the linear arrays at the transmitter and the receiver. There are multiple reasons it can be useful to be able to solve for the parameters of the LOS-MIMO channel.”) in a second affine subspace of the receiving device (0044 “a projection of this distance that depends on the relative orientation of the linear arrays at the transmitter and the receiver. Furthermore, the transmitter and receiver will not in general know the range R.”; 0044 “the plane perpendicular to the line between the transmitter and receiver”) , to determine a first projection array of the second projection array in a first affine subspace of the transmitting device (0143 “The line of sight channel parameter can additionally be” [EQUATION] where θ.sub.t can be an angle of declination angle of an array of the transmitting device antenna elements.”) , and to determine a transmitting subarray in the first antenna array according to information about an angle of departure of a signal of the transmitting device and the first projection array (0074 “The UE can then determine the subset of L eNB or AP antennas which yields the best LOS capacity and signal this set back to the eNB or AP.”; 0158 “The controller 920 can select antenna element spacing in each spatial dimension that maximizes a communication link capacity based on the at least one line of sight channel parameter.”) . Frank does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Song teaches determine a first projection array of the second projection array in a first affine subspace of the transmitting device (figs 1-2; p.394 “the projection of the optimal orthogonal design onto a tilted plane leads to parallelograms.”; p.395 “It is obvious from Equation (14) and (15) that the capacity of any 1D or 2D MIMO oblique arrays can be easily obtained via projecting onto broadside relative to the transmit direction. Thus, the optimal solutions of the antenna spacing under different out-of-plane rotation can also be obtained via mapping the broadside solution for transmit direction back to the plane where the arrays are located.”). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Song with the teachings of Frank. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve LOS-MIMO antenna design ( Song Abstract). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Song merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular projection features. Since both Frank and Song disclose similar LOS-MIMO systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Krishnamurthy teaches determine a transmitting subarray in the first antenna array according to information about an angle of departure of a signal of the transmitting device and the first projection array (fig. 3; 0026 “The antenna array 300 can be calibrated with respect to AoD, which can enable beamsteering in the direction of the terminal 1 10.”). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Krishnamurthy with the teachings of Frank. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce interference ( Krishnamurthy 0027). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Krishnamurthy merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular projection features. Since both Frank and Krishnamurthy disclose similar MIMO systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Regarding claim 3, the cited prior art teaches The transmitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control unit is further configured to determine the second projection array according to information about a number and spacing of antennas in the receiving array (Frank 0086 “For an extension of the above case to a planar array with N×N antennas with total of N.sup.2 antennas per planar array, using a Taylor series approximation as in the uniform linear array case, we get [EQUATION] where N is the number of antennas in each dimension, where (m.sub.1, m.sub.2) are the co-ordinates of receiver array and (n.sub.1, n.sub.2) are the coordinates of the transmitter array. One restriction on this equation can be that the x and y axes of the first array are parallel with the x and y axes of the second array (note that with this restriction, the planes containing the arrays are parallel).”). Regarding claim 4, the cited prior art teaches The transmitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control unit determines the first projection array of the second projection array in the first affine subspace of the transmitting device according to information about a distance between the receiving device and the transmitting device (Frank 0021 “The separation between the transmitter 110 and the receiver 120, such as the link range, is R and the inter-element spacing is d. For derivation of a column orthogonality condition for line of sight MIMO, let y=Hx+w where y is the received signal vector, H is the channel matrix, h.sub.m,n is the element in the m-th row and i-th column of the matrix H and denotes the complex gain of the path from the n-th transmit element to the m-th receive element, x is the transmitted signal vector, and w is the white noise. In a purely Line of Sight (LOS) channel”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (US 20180152227 hereinafter Frank) in view of Song et al. ( On Spatial Multiplexing of Strong Line-of-Sight MIMO With 3D Antenna Arrangements [NPL, 2015] hereinafter Song) and further in view of Krishnamurthy et al. (WO 2014099346 hereinafter Krishnamurthy) , as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Bocus et al. (US 20190302217 hereinafter Bocus) . Regarding claim 2, the cited prior art teaches The transmitting device as claimed in claim 1, wherein the control unit determines the second projection array of the receiving antenna array of the receiving device in the second affine subspace of the receiving device according to information about an angle of arrival of a signal at a receiving device and information about a pose of a receiving device (Frank 0044 “a projection of this distance that depends on the relative orientation of the linear arrays at the transmitter and the receiver. Furthermore, the transmitter and receiver will not in general know the range R.”; 0044 “the plane perpendicular to the line between the transmitter and receiver”) . The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Bocus teaches wherein the control unit determines the second projection array of the receiving antenna array of the receiving device in the second affine subspace of the receiving device according to information about an angle of arrival of a signal at a receiving device (Abstract “A method of determining a direction of arrival of a signal at a device comprising an antenna with multiple antenna elements . . . determine respective phases of the average signals and determine at least one of an azimuth and elevation angle of the signal using the determined phases and information of the location of the antenna elements.”). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Bocus with the teachings of Frank. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce system complexity ( Bocus 0028). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Bocus merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular angle of arrival features. Since both the cited prior art and Bocus disclose similar antenna systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (US 20180152227 hereinafter Frank) in view of Song et al. ( On Spatial Multiplexing of Strong Line-of-Sight MIMO With 3D Antenna Arrangements [NPL, 2015] hereinafter Song) . Regarding claim 5, Frank teaches A method for determining a transmitting subarray (fig 5) , applied to a transmitting device, the transmitting device comprising a first antenna array, the method comprising (fig 8) : determining a second projection array of a receiving antenna array of a receiving device (0044 “it is not the distance between elements that matters, but a projection of this distance that depends on the relative orientation of the linear arrays at the transmitter and the receiver”; 0047 “the transmitter may know the spacing of the elements d.sub.T and the wavelength λ, the transmitter may not know the range, and furthermore may not know the needed projection of this distance that depends on the relative orientation of the linear arrays at the transmitter and the receiver. There are multiple reasons it can be useful to be able to solve for the parameters of the LOS-MIMO channel.”) in a second affine subspace of the receiving device according to information about a pose of the receiving device (0044 “a projection of this distance that depends on the relative orientation of the linear arrays at the transmitter and the receiver. Furthermore, the transmitter and receiver will not in general know the range R.”; 0044 “the plane perpendicular to the line between the transmitter and receiver”) ; determining a first projection array of the second projection array in a first affine subspace of the transmitting device (0143 “The line of sight channel parameter can additionally be” [EQUATION] where θ.sub.t can be an angle of declination angle of an array of the transmitting device antenna elements.”) ; and determining a transmitting subarray in the first antenna array according to information about a pose of the transmitting device and the first projection array (0126 “The line of sight channel parameter can also be [EQUATION] where θ.sub.r can be an angle of declination angle of the receiver array of antennas. For example, the line of sight parameter can be multiplied by an additional factor that is geometry dependent.”) . Frank does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Song teaches determining a first projection array of the second projection array in a first affine subspace of the transmitting device (figs 1-2; p.394 “the projection of the optimal orthogonal design onto a tilted plane leads to parallelograms.”; p.395 “It is obvious from Equation (14) and (15) that the capacity of any 1D or 2D MIMO oblique arrays can be easily obtained via projecting onto broadside relative to the transmit direction. Thus, the optimal solutions of the antenna spacing under different out-of-plane rotation can also be obtained via mapping the broadside solution for transmit direction back to the plane where the arrays are located.”). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Song with the teachings of Frank. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously improve LOS-MIMO antenna design ( Song Abstract). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Song merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular projection features. Since both Frank and Song disclose similar LOS-MIMO systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results . 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Frank et al. (US 20180152227 hereinafter Frank) in view of Bocus et al. (US 20190302217 hereinafter Bocus) . Regarding claim 6, Frank teaches A receiving device comprising: a receiving unit comprising a receiving antenna array (0006 “FIG. 1 is an example illustration of an antenna configuration at a transmitter and a receiver according to a possible embodiment”) ; a control unit (0146 “a controller 920”) configured to determine a second projection array of a receiving antenna array in a second affine subspace of a receiving device (0044 “it is not the distance between elements that matters, but a projection of this distance that depends on the relative orientation of the linear arrays at the transmitter and the receiver”; 0047 “the transmitter may know the spacing of the elements d.sub.T and the wavelength λ, the transmitter may not know the range, and furthermore may not know the needed projection of this distance that depends on the relative orientation of the linear arrays at the transmitter and the receiver. There are multiple reasons it can be useful to be able to solve for the parameters of the LOS-MIMO channel.”) according to information about an angle of arrival of a signal at the receiving device and information about a pose of the receiving device (0044 “a projection of this distance that depends on the relative orientation of the linear arrays at the transmitter and the receiver. Furthermore, the transmitter and receiver will not in general know the range R.”; 0044 “the plane perpendicular to the line between the transmitter and receiver”) ; and a transmitting unit configured to transmit information about the second projection array (fig 4 “transmit line of sight parameters”) . The cited prior art does not explicitly teach the strikethrough limitations. However, in a related field of endeavor, Bocus teaches configured to determine a second projection array of a receiving antenna array in a second affine subspace of a receiving device according to information about an angle of arrival of a signal at the receiving device and information about a pose of the receiving device (Abstract “A method of determining a direction of arrival of a signal at a device comprising an antenna with multiple antenna elements . . . determine respective phases of the average signals and determine at least one of an azimuth and elevation angle of the signal using the determined phases and information of the location of the antenna elements.”). Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing of the instant application, to include the teachings of Bocus with the teachings of Frank. One would have been motivated to do so in order to advantageously reduce system complexity ( Bocus 0028). Further still, the Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) provides that combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results may render a claimed invention obvious over such combination. Here, Bocus merely teaches that it is well-known to incorporate the particular angle of arrival features. Since both the cited prior art and Bocus disclose similar antenna systems, one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the combination of elements here has previously been executed according to known methods, thereby evidencing that such combination would yield predictable results. Conclusion 07-96 The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to application’s disclosure: Liang et al. (US 20180234157) discloses “This invention presents methods for MU-MIMO wireless communication systems comprising a BS with plural of antennas (See abstract)” Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571) 272-3896. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm. 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, Vladimir Magloire can be reached on (571) 270-5144. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ISMAAEEL A. SIDDIQUEE/ Examiner, Art Unit 3648 /VLADIMIR MAGLOIRE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/857,975 Page 2 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/857,975 Page 3 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/857,975 Page 4 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/857,975 Page 5 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/857,975 Page 6 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/857,975 Page 7 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/857,975 Page 8 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/857,975 Page 9 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/857,975 Page 10 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/857,975 Page 11 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/857,975 Page 12 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/857,975 Page 13 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/857,975 Page 14 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/857,975 Page 15 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/857,975 Page 16 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/857,975 Page 17 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/857,975 Page 18 Art Unit: 3648 Application/Control Number: 18/857,975 Page 19 Art Unit: 3648
Prosecution Insights