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 .
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi et al. (Sakaguchi et al., “Where, When, and How mmWave is Used in 5G and Beyond”, IEICE Trans. Electron. 100-C, Oct 2017) in view of Zhang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2020/0068627 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sakaguchi et al. teaches in FIG. 14 (FIG. 14 is reproduced below with annotations) a wireless communication node (node B which is a SC-BS—small cell base station) that is installed at a fixed, land-based location and is configured to operate as part of a wireless mesh network, the wireless communication node comprising: a first set of equipment for establishing a long-hop, node-to-node wireless link with a first other wireless communication node (node A which is a LTE macro BS) in the wireless mesh network, wherein the long-hop, node-to-node wireless link provides a single-hop communication path for communicating with the first other wireless communication node; and a second set of equipment for establishing a short-hop, node-to-node wireless link with a second other wireless communication node (node C which is another SC-BS) in the wireless mesh network. Sakaguchi et al. teaches in FIG. 14 links between nodes B and C, nodes C and D and nodes D and A. The difference between Sakaguchi et al. and the claimed invention is that Sakaguchi et al. does not teach an alternate, multi-hop communication path for communicating with the first other wireless communication node. Zhang et al. teaches in FIG. 4 a mesh network. Zhang et al. teaches in paragraph [0036] that there are usually alternate paths through the network to sustain a connection and gives an example that path ABDEG is an alternate path for path ACDEG. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Zhang et al. with the system of Sakaguchi et al. to use the path BCDA as an alternate, multi-hop communication path for communicating with node A because it sustains a connection. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the path BCDA as an alternate path, as taught by Zhang et al., in the system of Sakaguchi et al.
Regarding claim 2, Sakaguchi et al. teaches in FIG. 14 point-to-point mmWave links.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi et al. and Zhang et al. as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Xiao et al. (Xiao et al., “Millimeter Wave Communications for Future Mobile Networks”, IEEE Journal on Selected Area in Communications, Vol. 35, No. 9, September 2017).
Sakaguchi et al. and Zhang et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2. The difference between Sakaguchi et al. and Zhang et al. and the claimed invention is that Sakaguchi et al. and Zhang et al. do not teach that the long-hop, node-to-node wireless link has a length of at least 600 meters and the short-hop, node-to-node wireless link has a length of no more than 300 meters. Xiao et al. teaches on page 1925, left col., 4th paragraph that the coverage distance for E-band is up to several km due to rain attenuation, while that for V-band is about 50–700m due to both the rain and oxygen attenuation. Therefore, mmWave is capability of providing a long-hop length of at least 600 meters. The actual arrangement of the SC-BSs in an LTE macro cell such that the distant between two adjacent small cells is less than 300 meters is an engineering choice without undue experimentation. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to design the mesh network of SC-BSs such that the long-hop, node-to-node wireless link has a length of at least 600 meters and the short-hop, node-to-node wireless link has a length of no more than 300 meters in the modified system of Sakaguchi et al. and Zhang et al.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi et al. and Zhang et al. as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Faerber et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2015/0071248 A1).
Sakaguchi et al. and Zhang et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2. The difference between Sakaguchi et al. and Zhang et al. and the claimed invention is that Sakaguchi et al. and Zhang et al. do not teach a second long-hop wireless link and a second short-hop wireless link. Faerber et al. teaches in paragraph [0024] that BS 121-2 (equivalent to SC-BS of Sakaguchi et al.) is coupled with BS 111 (equivalent to LTE base station of Sakaguchi et al.) via link 122-2, it also coupled with BS 131 (equivalent to another LTE base station) via link 124-2. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Faerber et al. with the modified system of Sakaguchi et al. and Zhang et al. because having a SC-BS covered by two LTE macro cell allows a UE to move smoothly from one macro cell to another macro cell. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a second long-hop link to another LTE base station, as taught by Faerber et al., in the modified system of Sakaguchi et al. and Zhang et al. It is obvious that the second LTE macro cell has similar architecture as the first LTE macro cell; the wireless communication node, belonging to both the first LTE macro cell and the second LTE macro cell, has an alternate path to the second LTE macro cell via another short-hop wireless link.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi et al. and Zhang et al. as applied to claims 1-2 above, and further in view of Tang et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2020/0213874 A1).
Sakaguchi et al. and Zhang et al. have been discussed above in regard to claims 1-2. The difference between Sakaguchi et al. and Zhang et al. and the claimed invention is that Sakaguchi et al. and Zhang et al. do not teach a third set of equipment for communicating with a point of presence (PoP) that provides connectivity to a core network via a long-hop, node-to-PoP wireless link. Tang et al. teaches in FIG. 1 a wireless network. Tang et al. teaches in paragraph [0024] that any base station can have a backhaul link to a point of presence. Tang et al. teaches in paragraph [0025] that the link can be any wireless communication technology known in the art. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Tang et al. with the modified system of Sakaguchi et al. and Zhang et al. because Tang et al. teaches the details of implementation that are missing from Sakaguchi et al. and Zhang et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include equipment for communicating with a PoP, as taught by Tang et al., in the modified system of Sakaguchi et al. and Zhang et al.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakaguchi et al., Zhang et al. and Tang et al. as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Bliss et al. (U.S. Patent Application Pub. 2018/0367498 A1).
Sakaguchi et al., Zhang et al. and Tang et al. have been discussed above in regard to claim 5. The difference between Sakaguchi et al., Zhang et al. and Tang et al. and the claimed invention is that Sakaguchi et al., Zhang et al. and Tang et al. do not teach that the node-to-PoP link provides a capacity of at least 10 gigabits per second (Gbps). Bliss et al. teaches in FIG. 2B and paragraph [0040] that link has a bandwidth of 10 gigabits per second. It is also clear from FIG. 14 of Sakaguchi et al. that the traffic of node-to-PoP link is the concentration of all the traffic of other links including the long-hop link to the LTE base station, the short-hop links to other SC-BSs and traffic of the end users (e.g. mobile phones). That is, the node-to-PoP link by design must have a higher capacity than any of the other links. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to combine the teaching of Bliss et al. with the modified system of Sakaguchi et al., Zhang et al. and Tang et al. because Bliss et al. provides details of implementation that are missing from Sakaguchi et al., Zhang et al. and Tang et al. Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a high capacity node-to-PoP link of at least 10 Gbps, as taught by Bliss et al., in the modified system of Sakaguchi et al., Zhang et al. and Tang et al.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. 10,951,513 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of each of the claims 1-4 of instant application are taught by the corresponding claim of Patent ‘513.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,431,612 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the limitations of each of the claims 1-2 and 4 of instant application are taught by the corresponding claim of Patent ‘612. The following table maps the limitations of instant claim 1 to claim 1 of Patent ‘612.
Claim 1 of instant application
claim 1 of Patent 11,431,612
A wireless communication node
(a node in the first subset corresponds to the wireless communication node of claim 1 of instant application)
that is installed at a fixed, land-based location and is configured to operate as part of a wireless mesh network
a cluster of wireless communication nodes that are installed at respective ground-based sites within a given geographic region and are configured to operate as part of a wireless mesh access
the wireless communication node comprising:
a first set of equipment for establishing a long-hop, node-to-node wireless link with a first other wireless communication node in the wireless mesh network, wherein the long-hop, node-to- node wireless link provides a single-hop communication path for communicating with the first other wireless communication node; and
a first subset of the wireless communication nodes in the cluster form a mesh of node-to-node long-hop millimeter-wave (mmWave) wireless links, wherein each respective node-to-node long-hop mmWave wireless link in the mesh directly connects a respective pair of wireless communication nodes in the first subset;
a second set of equipment for establishing a short-hop, node-to-node wireless link with a second other wireless communication node in the wireless mesh network, wherein the short-hop, node-to-node wireless link provides an alternate, multi-hop communication path for communicating with the first other wireless communication node.
a second subset of the wireless communication nodes in the cluster form chains of node-to-node short-hop mmWave wireless links that provide additional communication paths between the respective pairs of wireless communication nodes in the first subset, wherein each respective pair of directly-connected wireless communication nodes in the first subset is indirectly connected via a respective chain of two or more node-to-node short-hop mmWave wireless links that extends through one or more wireless communication nodes in the second subset;
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 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.
Claims 12-20 are allowed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHI K LI whose telephone number is (571)272-3031. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:53 a.m. -3:23 p.m.
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, David Payne can be reached at 571 272-3024. 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.
skl8 September 2026
/SHI K LI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights