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 filed on 10/28/2024 has been considered and placed of record in the file.
Oath/Declaration
The Oath or Declaration is being considered by examiner and complies with PTO requirements.
Claim Objections
Claims 15-16 and 37 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 15, define “SNR” in line 2.
Regarding claim 16, define “SNR” in line 3.
Regarding claim 37, define “SNR” in line 2.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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.
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.
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: a phase-shift arrangement configurable to phase-shift in claim 10; and a phase-shift arrangement configurable to phase-shift in claim 19.
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 10-11, 13-14, 19-22, 24, 32-33, and 35-36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vagman US 2015/0325913 in view of Uehashi et al. US 2023/0179446 in view of Rainish et al. US 2019/0089434.
Consider claim 10, Vagman discloses A receiver (see FIG. 3), comprising:
a plurality of receiver arrangement (see FIG. 3, rcvr-i to rcvr-t) arrangements each configured for connection to one respective antenna element of a plurality of antenna elements (see FIG. 3 and ¶ [0166], antenna no.1 to antenna no.L), a first combiner (see FIG. 3, combiner 95) and a second combiner (see FIG. 3, combiner 100C);
the receiver being configurable to receive wireless transmissions at each of the plurality of antenna elements (see ¶ [0166], wherein the receiver module 90 utilities rcvr-i to rcvr-t to receive signals indicative of the incoming waveform S received by their respective antenna elements 15);
each receiver arrangement of the plurality of receiver arrangements comprising a phase-shift arrangement configurable to phase-shift the received antenna signals in relation to multiple beam directions, thereby providing phase-shifted antenna signals (see FIG. 3 and ¶ [0166], wherein each receiver group 90(i) configured to apply appropriate phase shifting for controlling/steering the angular receiving pattern i.e. beam direction);
the first combiner (see FIG. 3, combiner 1) being configurable to combine the phase-shifted antenna signals thereby providing a received beam signal (see FIG. 3 and ¶ [0167], wherein combiner 1 configured to combine the phase-shifted antenna signal output from rcvr-1 and rcvr-i); and
the second combiner (see FIG. 3, combination of components corrector-1 to corrector-n and combiner 100C) comprising a synchronizer (corrector-1 to corrector-n) configurable to synchronize the received beam signals with regards to a phase difference between the received beam signals (see ¶ [0168] and [0176], wherein the phase of elemental-beams/directional-signals are corrected by the phase corrector module 100i) and the second combiner being configurable to combine the received beam signals thereby providing a combined receive signal (see FIG. 3 and ¶ [0168], wherein combiner 100C coherently added the phase corrected directional signals and provide combined beam CDS signal).
However Vagman does not explicitly disclose multiple transmitters, wherein the wireless transmissions comprise comprising a respective identical copy of an information stream; and synchronize the receive beams signal in regards to a time difference between the received beam signals.
Uehashi teaches multiple transmitters (see FIG. 1, base station 10-1 and 10-2), wherein the wireless transmissions comprising a respective identical copy of an information stream (see FIG. 2 and ¶ [0027], wherein the radio frame i.e. wireless transmission, comprises identical data symbol sequences A). Uehashi further discloses reducing correlation between Differential Space-time Block Coding (DSTBC) signals (see ¶ [0027]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Vagman, and to include multiple transmitters, wherein the wireless transmissions comprise comprising a respective identical copy of an information stream, as taught by Uehashi for the purpose of reducing correlation between Differential Space-time Block Coding (DSTBC) signals.
However, Vagman and Uehashi do not explicitly disclose synchronize the receive beams signal in regards to a time difference between the received beam signals. Rainish teaches synchronize the receive beams signal in regards to a time difference between the received beam signals (see ¶ [0097], wherein data combining/distributing circuitry 20 operable for implementing time synchronized summation of the beamforming- channels associated with the respective received beams). Rainish further discloses steerable beamforming of antenna signals (see ¶ [0001]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Vagman and Uehashi, and to include synchronize the receive beams signal in regards to a time difference between the received beam signals, as taught by Rainish for the purpose of providing steerable beamforming of antenna signals.
Claims 19, 24, and 32 are rejected on the same ground as for claim 10 because of similar scope.
Consider claims 11 and 33, Vagman discloses wherein each of the multiple beam directions corresponds to a predetermined or configurable phase- shift and the phase-shift arrangement is further configurable to phase rotate the received antenna signals with the predetermined or configurable phase-shift (see ¶ [0113-0116] and [0166]).
Consider claims 13 and 35, Uehashi discloses wherein the wireless transmissions comprises a synchronization signal (see FIG. 2, training symbol sequence A-1 and A-2) and the synchronizer is further configurable to detect the synchronization signal and synchronize the received beam signals based on the detected synchronization signal (see FIG. 3 and ¶ [0033-0034]).
Consider claims 14 and 36, Vagman discloses wherein each receiver arrangement of the plurality of receiver arrangements further comprises an analog to digital converter, ADC, configurable to convert the received antenna signals into a corresponding digital representation of the received antenna signals (see ¶ [0074], wherein transceiver module 90 includes A/D converters).
Consider claim 20, Vagman discloses further comprising the plurality of antenna elements (see FIG. 3).
Consider claim 21, Uehashi discloses wherein the apparatus is a wireless device (see FIG. 1).
Consider claim 22, Uehashi discloses wherein the apparatus is a network node (see FIG. 1).
Claim(s) 12 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vagman US 2015/0325913 in view of Uehashi et al. US 2023/0179446 in view of Rainish et al. US 2019/0089434 as applied to claims 10 and 33 above, and further in view of Ma US 2018/0076520.
Consider claim 12, Vagman in view of Uehashi in view of Rainish discloses every claimed limitation in claim 10.
Vagman further discloses the phase-shift is a configurable phase-shift (see ¶ [0113-0116]).
However Vagman in view of Uehashi in view of Rainish does not explicitly disclose the phase-shift arrangement is further configurable to perform beam scanning to determine the configurable phase-shift. Ma teaches the phase-shift arrangement is further configurable to perform beam scanning to determine the configurable phase-shift (see ¶ [0073]). Ma further discloses improving the quality of beam forming transmission (see ¶ [0039]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Vagman in view of Uehashi in view of Rainish, and to include the phase-shift arrangement is further configurable to perform beam scanning to determine the configurable phase-shift, as taught by Ma for the purpose of improving the quality of beam forming transmission.
Claim 34 is rejected on the same ground as for claim 12 because of similar scope.
Claim(s) 15-16 and 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vagman US 2015/0325913 in view of Uehashi et al. US 2023/0179446 in view of Rainish et al. US 2019/0089434 as applied to claims 10 and 32 above, and further in view of Shriner et al. US 2022/0232329.
Consider claim 15, Vagman in view of Uehashi in view of Rainish discloses every claimed limitation in claim 10.
However Vagman in view of Uehashi in view of Rainish does not explicitly disclose a receive signal SNR device configurable to determine a receive signal SNR (rSNR) of the combined receive signal for subsequent communication. Shriner teaches a receive signal SNR device configurable to determine a receive signal SNR (rSNR) of the combined receive signal for subsequent communication (see ¶ [0101-0102]). Shriner further discloses increasing and maximizing the SNR of received signal of interested (see ¶ [0101]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify the invention of Vagman in view of Uehashi in view of Rainish, and to include a receive signal SNR device configurable to determine a receive signal SNR (rSNR) of the combined receive signal for subsequent communication, as taught by Shriner for the purpose of increasing and maximizing the SNR of received signal of interested.
Consider claims 16 and 37, Shriner discloses wherein the second combiner is further to determine a transmitter SNR of each of the received beam signals for subsequence communication (see ¶ [0101-0102]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 17-18 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE N TIEU whose telephone number is (571)270-1888. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:30.
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, Sam Ahn can be reached at (571) 272-3044. 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.
/JANICE N TIEU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633