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 .
This office action is in response to the Applicant’s communication filed on 12/19/2024. Claims 1 – 14 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claim 14 is objected to under 37 CFR 1.75(c) as being in improper form because a multiple dependent claim cannot depend from any other multiple dependent claim. See MPEP § 608.01(n). Accordingly, the claim 14 not been further treated on the merits.
Particularly, claim 14 states in its preamble:
“A computer-readable storage medium, on which is stored a computer program comprising instructions which lead the processor module of the equipment according to claim 1, to execute steps of a method for transmitting radiofrequency signals, implemented in the processor module of a piece of equipment according to one of the preceding claims…”
One of the preceding claims is claim 13 which is also a multiple dependent claim. Additionally, it is not clear if presence of both “according to claim 1” and “according to one of the preceding claims” is intentional in the claim or is by mistake.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 1 – 14 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 1 recites the limitation "the direction" and “the equipment” multiple times. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claims 2 and 4 each recites the limitation "the direction". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each of the claims.
Claim 5 recites the limitation "the direction" twice and “the lowest radiated power value”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the different phase values". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 8 and 10 each recites the limitation "the equipment" twice. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in each of the claims.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the direction" multiple times. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2 – 14 are also rejected as being dependent from the rejected respective parent claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by US 20240147383 (Anderson).
Regarding claims 1 and 12, Anderson teaches “A piece of equipment (shown in FIG 1 with corresponding description), comprising:
a radiofrequency device designed to transmit radiofrequency signals by generating a radiated power (paragraph 0013: FIG. 1 illustrates an apparatus 100 (e.g., an access point) configured to adapt radio transmit power based on orientation (e.g., tilt angle) of the apparatus (and of its transmit antenna, in particular) measured by an orientation sensor) which, when the equipment is installed with a nominal orientation (since the claim does not further define specifics of “a nominal orientation”, it is interpreted according to the concept of broadest reasonable interpretation. In the disclosure of Anderson, this may be equated to the orientation of FIG 2B showing the antenna assembly 150 having a 30 degrees downtilt orientation (θ2=−30° downward tilt angle relative to the horizon) and an elevation of 15 ft. The antenna 150 in FIG. 2B radiates a signal 252b having a radiation pattern 254b in a second direction in relation to the horizon.), is less than a first predefined power threshold in the direction of a first reference zone (paragraph 0018: to avoid exceeding the EIRP limits at the horizon. Here, “the direction of a first reference zone” is mapped to the horizontal direction and the disclosed EIRP limits at the horizon corresponds to the recited “a first predefined power threshold”. This also corresponds to disclosed in paragraph 0020 of being within the appropriate regulatory restrictions. The “first reference zone” is also disclosed in paragraph 0022 as the antenna 150 in FIG. 2B radiates a signal 252b having a radiation pattern 254b in a second direction in relation to the horizon. Additionally, “a first predefined power threshold” being 36 dBm is also given in paragraph 0003, just as in the Applicant’s own specification as filed in lines 3 – 4 of page 2) and is less than a second predefined power threshold in the direction of a second reference zone (24) (paragraph 0003: According to FCC 14-30 Section 15.407, for an outdoor wireless access point operating in the U-NII-1, U-NII-5, and U-NII-7 bands, “The maximum EIRP at any elevation angle above 30 degrees as measured from the horizon (representing “in the direction a second reference zone”) must not exceed 125 milliwatts (mW) (21 dBm)”, (representing “less than a second predefined power threshold”)), the second predefined power threshold being less than the first predefined power threshold (as explained above, “the second predefined power threshold” is given in paragraph 0003 as 21 dBm, while “the first predefined power threshold” is given as 36 dBm, thus 21<36), the second reference zone being a vertical angular cone having the equipment as its apex (as stated in paragraph 0003, this condition is expressed as any elevation angle above 30 degrees as measured from the horizon. This may also be seen from FIG 2B having equipment 100 as an apex in relation to the dashed line representing 30°);
a measuring device designed to measure at least one quantity representative of a current orientation of the equipment (paragraph 0014: The orientation sensor 130 is configured to determine an orientation (e.g., tilt angle) of the apparatus 100 (and/or its antenna assembly 150). The controller 110 is configured to estimate the orientation of the apparatus 100 (antenna 150) using output from the orientation sensor 130,);
a processor module (controller 110 in FIG 1) designed, if the current orientation of the piece of equipment differs from the nominal orientation and is such that the power radiated in the direction of the second reference zone is likely to exceed the second predefined power threshold, to operate the radiofrequency device in order to limit the power radiated in the direction of the second reference zone and thus ensure that the power radiated in the direction of the second reference zone is less than the second predefined power threshold (paragraph 0014: The controller 110 is configured to estimate the orientation of the apparatus 100 (antenna 150) using output from the orientation sensor 130, and determine an adjustment factor for the output power of transmitter 142 based on the orientation. The controller 110 is further configured to generate a power adjustment control to adjust output power of the transmitter 142 based on the adjustment factor. Paragraph 0015: the controller 110 is configured to estimate an angle of tilt of the antenna 150 relative to the horizon based on the orientation determined by the orientation sensor 130. Paragraph 0017: The controller 110 is configured to generate the power adjustment control that adjusts the output power of the transmitter 142 to achieve a highest allowable EIRP that does not exceed a maximum EIRP value at a predetermined angle above the horizon according to regulatory restrictions. As explained above, “the nominal orientation” is given by FIG 2B. Paragraph 0022: FIG. 2A shows an orientation/tilt and elevation/height for the antenna assembly 150 of apparatus 100 where the antenna assembly 150 has a boresight orientation (θ1=0° relative to the horizon). Thus, this installation represents the case when “the current orientation of the piece of equipment differs from the nominal orientation”. The antenna 150 in FIG. 2A radiates a signal 252a having a radiation pattern 254a in a first direction in relation to the horizon. As further stated in paragraph 0022, some of the signal 252a (as depicted by its radiation pattern 254a) is shown propagating above the horizon (and even above a predetermined angle (e.g., 30 degrees above the horizon) in FIG. 2A. This means that, and using the language of the claim, “that the power radiated in the direction of the second reference zone is likely to exceed the second predefined power threshold”. Paragraph 0024: As shown in FIG. 3A, when the orientation/tilt of the antenna 150 is at 0 degrees or boresight (Orientation 1 of FIG. 2A), the gain (Ga1) of this patch antenna at 30 degrees above the horizon is 6.2 dBi. Therefore, according to FCC 14-30 Section 15.407, the access point's output radio transmit power (PT1) can be set to a maximum of 15 dBm (refer to FIG. 3A). This action represents “to operate the radiofrequency device in order to limit the power radiated in the direction of the second reference zone and thus ensure that the power radiated in the direction of the second reference zone is less than the second predefined power threshold”, as the claim requires).”
Regarding claim 2, Anderson teaches “wherein, to limit the power radiated in the direction of the second reference zone (24), the processor module is designed to limit an electrical power of at least one electrical signal applied between terminals of at least one antenna of the radiofrequency device (Paragraph 0024: As shown in FIG. 3A, when the orientation/tilt of the antenna 150 is at 0 degrees or boresight (Orientation 1 of FIG. 2A), the gain (Ga1) of this patch antenna at 30 degrees above the horizon is 6.2 dBi. Therefore, according to FCC 14-30 Section 15.407, the access point's output radio transmit power (PT1) can be set to a maximum of 15 dBm (refer to FIG. 3A) (“to limit an electrical power of at least one electrical signal applied between terminals of at least one antenna”).).”
Regarding claim 8, Anderson teaches “wherein the at least one quantity representative of the current orientation of the equipment comprises at least one acceleration of the equipment along a predefined axis (paragraph 0015: The orientation sensor 130 may be a three-dimensional (XYZ) accelerometer. An accelerometer can detect the orientation (tilt) of a device, by measuring the acceleration due to Earth's gravity. The accelerometer can determine if the object is parallel to the Earth's surface or if it is tilted, and more specifically, can measure the tilt (in degrees).).”
Regarding claim 9, Anderson teaches “wherein the processor module is designed to convert the at least one acceleration into at least one angle with respect to at least one reference direction or reference plane (paragraphs 0015 – 0016: the controller 110 is configured to estimate an angle of tilt of the antenna 150 relative to the horizon based on the orientation determined by the orientation sensor 130, which may be a three-dimensional (XYZ) accelerometer. The accelerometer can determine if the object is parallel to the Earth's surface or if it is tilted, and more specifically, can measure the tilt (in degrees). The controller 110 is configured to determine the adjustment factor by calculating an adjusted output power of the transmitter 142 based on the angle of tilt of the antenna 150. Thus, an angle is determined based on acceleration).”
Regarding claim 11, Anderson teaches “wherein the piece of equipment is an access point (paragraph 0013: Referring to FIG. 1, FIG. 1 illustrates an apparatus 100 (e.g., an access point) configured to adapt radio transmit power based on orientation (e.g., tilt angle) of the apparatus measured by an orientation sensor).”
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.
Claims 7 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240147383 (Anderson) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20100279751 (Pourseyed) (of record).
Regarding claim 7, Anderson does not teach “wherein the radiofrequency device comprises antennas, a radiofrequency transmission chain designed to produce electrical signals, and at least one switch designed to implement configurable connections between the antennas and the radiofrequency transmission chain, the processor module being designed, in order to limit the radiated power, to operate the at least one switch in such a way as to reconfigure the configurable connections.”
In similar art, Pourseyed also teaches an apparatus and a corresponding method for controlling radiation characteristics of a transmitter of a wireless device. The wireless device includes a transmitting portion that includes one or more antennas that are characterized by one or more radiation patterns. The wireless device further comprises a sensor system for determining an orientation of the transmitting portion and a control system that is operatively coupled to the sensor system and configured to control the supply of power to each antenna depending on the orientation of the transmitting portion. (All this in abstract)
Particularly, Pourseyed teaches in FIG 6 with corresponding description in paragraphs 0077 – 0079 “the radiofrequency device (wireless device 500) comprises antennas (antennas 511 and 512), a radiofrequency transmission chain designed to produce electrical signals (part of radio 550), and at least one switch designed to implement configurable connections between the antennas and the radiofrequency transmission chain (The wireless device comprises a switching device 521, which is configured to operatively activate the first antenna 511 and the second antenna 512.), the processor module being designed, in order to limit the radiated power, to operate the at least one switch in such a way as to reconfigure the configurable connections (The radio baseband controller 550 can selectively operate the switching device 521 to select one of or both of the antennas 511 and 512 for operation such that electromagnetic radiation which may lead to user irradiation can be controlled such that a predetermined SAR level may be satisfied.).”
Therefore, since Anderson does not disclose particular configuration how the antenna radiation is controlled, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Pourseyed switching circuit controlling selection of antennas to control produced radiation, in the device of Anderson simply to fill in where Anderson is silent and as design choice with predictable results, since, according to the Supreme Court, “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007).
Regarding claim 10, Anderson does not teach “wherein the processor module is also designed to produce a notification to a user of the equipment, requesting the user to reposition the equipment in order to reinstall it with the nominal orientation.”
In similar art, Pourseyed also teaches an apparatus and a corresponding method for controlling radiation characteristics of a transmitter of a wireless device. The wireless device includes a transmitting portion that includes one or more antennas that are characterized by one or more radiation patterns. The wireless device further comprises a sensor system for determining an orientation of the transmitting portion and a control system that is operatively coupled to the sensor system and configured to control the supply of power to each antenna depending on the orientation of the transmitting portion. (All this in abstract)
Particularly, Pourseyed teaches in paragraph 0068 and FIG 4 a user notification element 370 for indicating a predetermined user notification such as an alarm indicating predetermined SAR levels, for example. Paragraph 0071: The user notification element 370 may be provided via a user interface of the wireless device or an interconnected computer or both, for example. The user notification element 370 may be configured to provide an optical or an acoustical indication or both, for example. Paragraph 0080: the user notification element 670 for indicating a predetermined user notification, for example, an indication of predetermined communication quality or radiation exposure levels, for example. Thus, specific purposes for notification are given as examples only and thus are not limited to only those explicitly disclosed.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the uplink to utilize disclosed by Pourseyed user notification element, in the device of Anderson. Doing so would have allowed to inform the user, for example, of excessive power being transmitted in the direction above 30° over the horizon.
With respect to specific claimed request “to reposition the equipment in order to reinstall it with the nominal orientation”, this is simply a non-functional content of the notification and thus bears no patentable weight.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240147383 (Anderson) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20040110469 (Judd).
Regarding claim 3, while teaching “…the processor module being designed to limit the radiated power (see explanation in the rejection of claim 3 above)…”, Anderson does not teach “wherein the radiofrequency device includes a beam steering system comprising an array of a plurality of antennas”, and “to control phases of electrical signals applied between terminals of the antennas of the beam steering system so as to modify a direction of transmission of an electromagnetic beam generated by the beam steering system.”
Judd teaches “the radiofrequency device includes a beam steering system comprising an array of a plurality of antennas (FIG 46 and par. 0183: creating the desired beam. The antenna elements 800 in an N by N (e.g., 3 by 3) array are each coupled with a respective one of a plurality of phase shifters 820.)”, and “to control phases of electrical signals applied between terminals of the antennas of the beam steering system so as to modify a direction of transmission of an electromagnetic beam generated by the beam steering system (A look-up table of phase values for discrete angles and elevations is used to create the desired beam. A controller 824 is provided to control all the phase shifters 820. Par. 0184: a beam or directional output is developed or generated for a given requirement or situation or relative location.).”
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Judd beam steering arrangement with phase shifters, in the system of Anderson. Doing so would have allowed to generate a beam suitable for a given requirement or situation or relative location (see Judd, par. 0184).
Claims 4 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240147383 (Anderson) in view of US 20040110469 (Judd) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 20220295420 (Musante).
Regarding claim 4, Anderson in combination with Judd teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the processor module is designed to select, from a predefined table, for all the antennas, phase values (Judd, paragraphs 0183 – 0184: A look-up table of phase values for discrete angles and elevations is used to create the desired beam. A controller 824 is provided to control all the phase shifters 820.)…” “…and such that the power radiated in the direction of the second reference zone is less than the second predefined power threshold (the system of Anderson operates as this limitation requires, as explained in the rejection of claim 1 above, the explanation being incorporated herein by reference)…”
Anderson and Judd do not explicitly teach that the phase values are “associated with the current orientation of the piece of equipment”.
Musante teaches a system similar to the one of Anderson (see abstract). FIG 5 and paragraphs 0037 – 0038 disclose an antenna gain information as a function of an orientation of a device with respect to one or more dimensions (“the current orientation of the piece of equipment”). The antenna gain information is stored as a table. Gain information for different angles of incidence of the antenna with a horizon are provided in columns of table 500. For example, a column 520 provides gain information for an angle of incidence A1 while column 522 provides gain information for an angle of incidence A2.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Musante concept of a relationship between plurality of angles of incidence of the antenna with a horizon and corresponding function, in the device of combined Anderson and Judd’s disclosures, and particularly with Judd’s look-up table of phase values for discrete angles and elevations used to create the desired beam. Doing so would have allowed to adjust the phase values in Judd’s table, at least for the beam elevation, based on current angle of incidence of the antenna with the horizon.
Lastly, when the concept of Musante of a relationship between plurality of angles of incidence of the antenna with a horizon and corresponding function is merged with Judd’s table of phase values, the resultant system would be able to use this table to “operate the beam orientation system so that it allocates said phase values to the electrical signals applied to the terminals of the antennas”, as the claim requires.
Regarding claim 5, Anderson in combination with Judd and Musante teaches or fairly suggests “wherein, if the predefined table does not comprise phase values associated with the current orientation (Judd, paragraph 0038: A granularity of angles provided in the tables varies by embodiment. Some embodiments provide information defining angles of incidence for 180 different angles. Other embodiments provide courser or finer granularities of angle of incidence information. Therefore, it is conceivable that the table may not contain specific entry or column for a particular angle of incidence) and such that the power radiated in the direction of the second reference zone is less than the second predefined power threshold (maintaining the power at or below the maximum EIRP of 21 dBm at any elevation angle above 30 degrees as measured from the horizon (representing “in the direction a second reference zone”) is the stated objective of the system of Anderson), the processor module selects the phase values associated with the current orientation (although this limitation is not disclosed by any of the applied references, as best understood the language of this limitation, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to simply interpolate, as is well-known in the art, the phase values taken from the table entries corresponding to the angle of incidence of the antenna with a horizon just above the angle corresponding to “the current orientation” and just below the angle corresponding to “the current orientation”, thus arriving at the recited “phase values associated with the current orientation”.) and with the lowest radiated power value in the direction of the second reference zone, and further limits an electrical power of at least one electrical signal applied between terminals of at least one antenna (in the system of Anderson, in no situation the radiated power above the 30° from the horizon should exceed the maximum EIRP of 21 dBm. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to maintain or even further reduce the radiated power so that the system stays below the maximum EIRP of 21 dBm regardless of whether the table does or does not contain specific entry or column for a particular angle of incidence).”
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20240147383 (Anderson) in view of US 20040110469 (Judd) and US 20220295420 (Musante) as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of US 20210135372 (Adams).
Regarding claim 6, Anderson in combination with Judd and Musante teaches or fairly suggests “wherein the current orientation is defined by an azimuth angle (at least implicit following from, for example, Musante’s FIG 4A and paragraphs 0034 – 0035: the lobe of a first antenna orientation 402, of an antenna 404. The first antenna orientation 402 of the antenna 404 represents a lobe of an antenna of a properly installed AP. A result of proper installation is that an antenna main lobe 410 of the antenna 404 is pointing primarily in a downward direction, away from the horizon 415. Thus, direction of this main lobe 410 represents “the current orientation is defined by an azimuth angle”. Additionally, Anderson in paragraph 0015 teaches that the orientation sensor 130 may be a three-dimensional (XYZ) accelerometer, or the orientation sensor 130 may be a gyroscope, an inertial measurement unit (IMU). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application, while using a gyroscope, to allow determination not only of the tilt of the device, but the azimuth angle as well. Doing so would have provided additional information regarding installation of the device) and an elevation angle (Anderson, paragraph 0016: determine the adjustment factor by correlating the angle of tilt of the antenna 150 (“an elevation angle”) of the apparatus 100 against stored data 124 describing an antenna pattern of the antenna in an elevation plane (e.g., a lookup table 126)), the predefined table (disclosed by Judd in paragraph 0183, as explained in the rejection of claim 3 above)…”
Anderson, Judd and Musante do not teach that the predefined table “having been obtained from measurements of radiation patterns according to the azimuth angle and the elevation angle, carried out for the different phase values.”
Adams teaches in paragraph 0027 – 0032 and FIG. 3 a block diagram of a system 300 for steering a beam radiated from phased array antenna 100. Phased array antenna 100 is fed by an RF source 302 and controlled by a microcontroller 304. Microcontroller 304 controls each of the plurality of phase shifters 120 (shown in FIG. 2) of phased array antenna 100 independently to modify the respective phase shifts applied to the RF signal supplied by RF source 302. System 300 also includes a scanner 306 configured to measure electromagnetic fields within resonant cavity 106 relative to the array of slot antenna elements 108 (“measurements of radiation patterns according to the azimuth angle and the elevation angle”). Computing system 308 instructs both scanner 306 and microcontroller 304 to collect test data for each permutation of phases within the range among phase shifters 120 (“carried out for the different phase values”) Processor 310 is further configured to process the test data collected by scanner 306 to determine a beam direction in azimuth and elevation relative to boresight 102 corresponding to electromagnetic fields measured by the scanner for each permutation of phase settings for phase shifters 120. Processor 310 is further configured to build a look-up table that relates the range of phases to beam directions. The look-up table can then be loaded onto microcontroller 304 such that it can control phase shifters 120 to produce a pattern of electromagnetic waves within resonant cavity 106 that correspond to a desired beam direction. For example, microcontroller 304 can be programmed to index into the look-up table based on the desired beam direction, in azimuth and elevation relative to boresight, and retrieve respective phase settings upon which control of the phase shifters by microcontroller 304 is based.
In other words, Adams teaches that the predefined table “having been obtained from measurements of radiation patterns according to the azimuth angle and the elevation angle, carried out for the different phase values.”
Therefore, since Judd does not teach how the table is constructed, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to utilize disclosed by Adams method of calibration of a phase array antenna, in the system of combined Anderson, Judd and Musante’s disclosures. Doing so would have provided a method of constructing the table of phase values that can be used to point the beam in the desired direction.
Since the system of Adams is set up in such a way as to index the look-up table based on the desired beam direction, in azimuth and elevation relative to boresight, in order to properly point the beam of an installed antenna in the desired direction, it would be necessary to know both the azimuth and elevation angles of the boresight of the antenna. In view of this, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application that in order to do that, it would be necessary to define “the current orientation” in terms of both azimuth and elevation angles.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GENNADIY TSVEY whose telephone number is (571)270-3198. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5:30.
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, Wesley Kim can be reached at 571-272-7867. 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.
/GENNADIY TSVEY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648
Prosecution Insights