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 .
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 15 and 17 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 15 and 17 recites the limitation "a communications device" in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as it cannot be determined if this is the same communications device as stated in claim 11. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as a second communications device.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5, 11, and 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhao et al. (“A city-wide experimental testbed for the next generation wireless networks” Published in Ad Hoc Network, Volume 111, Dated February 1, 2021 Web Link For High resolution images: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570870520306624 ).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhao et al. discloses an apparatus for emulating a wireless mesh network, the apparatus comprising: a plurality of monopole antennas (Section 4.1, Page 4, antenna array consisting of monopole antennas, Figure 4. and the use of wideband antennas, Section 6.4); and at least one connector for conductively coupling the plurality of monopole antennas to at least one communications device (coaxial cables and RF ports connecting the array to the N310 SDR transceiver; Fig. 3 shows TX1–TX4 / RX1–RX4 ports and lightning arrestors), wherein each monopole antenna is disposed within a near-field region of a neighboring monopole antenna (Figure 4 shows Monopole antennas disposed in close proximity thus near-field region of other monopole antennas) when the monopole antennas are used to emulate a wireless mesh network operating within a communications frequency range (Section 5.1: enable site to site links thus supporting mesh networks, Section 3.1: researchers could conduct a host of experiments, such as point-to-point MIMO communication, mesh network, and single site with base-station and mobile devices in realistic environments thus emulate Mesh Network communications) of 3500MHz to 300MHz (Section 4.1, Frequency range from 10MHz to 6GHz which would inherently include all frequencies between and the claimed range of 3500MHz to 300MHz).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhao et al. discloses the communications frequency range is from 1000MHz to 400MHz, and optionally wherein the communications frequency range is from 915MHz to 860MHz (Section 4.1, Frequency range from 10MHz to 6GHz which would inherently include all frequencies between and the claimed range).
Regarding Claim 5, Zhao et al. discloses the plurality of monopole antennas are arranged in an array, an offset grid and/or concentric patterns; and - the plurality of monopole antennas are arranged such that each monopole antenna extends longitudinally in a direction parallel to a direction in which a neighboring monopole antenna extends longitudinally (2x2 array with antennas adjacent on top and bottom, Figure 4. Section 4.1).
Regarding Claim 11, Zhao et al. discloses a system for emulating a wireless mesh network, the system comprising: an apparatus according to claim 1; and the at least one communications device conductively coupled to each monopole antenna by the at least one connector, wherein the at least one communications device is configured to transmit and/or receive a wireless signal within the communications frequency range using each monopole antenna (SDR connected to antenna array and transmits and receives through Coax with connectors on coax ends, Figures 3 and 4 and Section 4.1).
Regarding Claim 13, Zhao et al. discloses the at least one communications device comprises at least one modem (aggregation switch connected internet to the apparatus thus modem, Section 4.2).
Regarding Claim 14, Zhao et al. discloses one or more processors configured to control the at least one communications device to emulate a wireless mesh network between the monopole antennas (CPU controls SD-DU, Section 3.1, enable mesh network topology, Sections 3.1 and 5.1).
Regarding Claim 15, Zhao et al. discloses a second communications device coupled to one of the monopole antennas is configured to operate as a gateway device (aggregation switch connects SD-DU and internet thus gateway, Section 4.2).
Regarding Claim 16, Zhao et al. discloses a method of emulating a wireless mesh network, the method comprising: -conductively coupling a plurality of monopole antennas to at least one communications device, wherein each monopole antenna is disposed within a near- field region of a neighboring monopole antenna when the monopole antennas are used to emulate a wireless mesh network operating within a communications frequency range of 3500MHz to 300MHz; and - configuring the at least one communications device to form a wireless mesh network between the plurality of monopole antennas by transmitting and/or receiving signals within the communications frequency range (Section 4.1, Page 4, antenna array consisting of monopole antennas, Figure 4. and the use of wideband antennas, Section 6.4,coaxial cables and RF ports connecting the array to the N310 SDR transceiver; Fig. 3 shows TX1–TX4 / RX1–RX4 ports and lightning arrestors, Figure 4 shows Monopole antennas disposed in close proximity thus near-field region of other monopole antennas, Section 5.1: enable site to site links thus supporting mesh networks, Section 3.1: researchers could conduct a host of experiments, such as point-to-point MIMO communication, mesh network, and single site with base-station and mobile devices in realistic environments thus emulate Mesh Network communications, Section 4.1, Frequency range from 10MHz to 6GHz which would inherently include all frequencies between and the claimed range of 3500MHz to 300MHz).
Regarding Claim 17, Zhao et al. discloses a step of configuring a second communications device coupled to one of the monopole antennas to operate as a gateway device to the mesh network(aggregation switch connects SD-DU and internet thus gateway, Section 4.2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al in view of Flores-Cuadras et al(US 20120206301).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhao et al. discloses each monopole antenna comprises a quarter length for 428MHz (Figure 4, shows the antennas having a length, Section 4.1) however Zhao et al. fails to explicitly disclose the antenna substantially corresponding to a length of a quarter-wave monopole for all of the frequencies within the communications frequency range.
In an analogous art, Flores-Cuadras et al. discloses antenna substantially corresponding to a length of a quarter-wave monopole for a frequency within the communications frequency range (Paragraph 58).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the antenna substantially corresponding to a length of a quarter-wave monopole for a frequency within the communications frequency range to optimize the antenna efficiency for the utilized frequencies (Paragraph 58, Flores-Cuadras et al.).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al in view of Huang (US 20180205146).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhao et al. discloses a near-field region (antennas placed adjacent to each other, Figure 4a) however Zhao et al. fails to explicitly disclose a reactive near field region.
In an analogous art, Huang discloses that adjacent antennas is a reactive near field region (Paragraphs 71 and 91).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a reactive near field region in order to have the antenna spaced apart as the antennas cannot occupy the same space and to allow signal propagation according to standard electromagnetic radiation laws for reactive near fields within the near field of antenna transmissions.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al in view of De Ruijter et al. (US 20050285810).
Regarding Claims 7 and 8, Zhao et al. discloses monopole antennas, however Zhao et al. fails to explicitly disclose a terminating impedance coupled to each monopole antenna and the terminating impedance of at least one of the plurality of monopole antennas is different from, and/or variable relative to, the terminating impedance of at least one other of the plurality of monopole antennas.
In an analogous art, De Ruijter discloses a terminating impedance coupled to each monopole antenna and the terminating impedance of at least one of the plurality of monopole antennas is different from, and/or variable relative to, the terminating impedance of at least one other of the plurality of monopole antennas (Paragraphs 35-36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the terminating impedance of at least one of the plurality of monopole antennas is different from, and/or variable relative to, the terminating impedance of at least one other of the plurality of monopole antennas in order to operate both frequencies simultaneously and achieve directivity (De Ruijter, Paragraph 36).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al in view of Starkie et al. (US 20050110687).
Regarding Claims 9 and 10, Zhao et al. discloses the plurality of monopole antennas extend from a first side of a substrate (Section 4.1, Figure 4); and the substrate comprises a ground plane (Section 4.1, Figure 4), however Zhao et al. fails to explicitly disclose the at least one connector is provided on a second side of the substrate and a dielectric material disposed between and extending around each monopole antenna.
In an analogous art, Starkie et al. discloses the at least one connector is provided on a second side of the substrate and a dielectric material disposed between and extending around each monopole antenna (Paragraphs 94, and 31).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the at least one connector is provided on a second side of the substrate and a dielectric material disposed between and extending around each monopole antenna in order to allow the user to customize RF performance through the ground plane and dielectric specifics used.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al in view of Liu (US 20050176376).
Regarding Claim 12, Zhao et al. discloses a plurality of apparatuses wherein each apparatus is connected to another apparatus of the plurality of apparatuses (SD-DU connected between 5 radio sites, Section 4.4), however Zhao et al. fails to explicitly disclose placing the apparatus immediately adjacent each other.
In an analogous art, Liu discloses placing the apparatus immediately adjacent each other (devices under test (DUTs) placed in testing chamber thus immediately adjacent each other, Paragraph 8,9,1, 20, and 36).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the apparatus next to each other in order to test in batch for efficiency and cost savings (Liu, Paragraph 6).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhao et al in view of McCoy (US 20070060098).
Regarding Claim 18, Zhao et al. discloses a gateway connected to a monopole antenna (aggregation switch connects SD-DU with monopole antennas and internet thus gateway, Sections 4.1- 4.2), however Zhao et al. fails to explicitly disclose a step of increasing a transmission power and/or reception sensitivity of the monopole antenna operating as a gateway device relative to the other monopole antennas of the plurality of monopole antennas.
In an analogous art, McCoy discloses a step of increasing a transmission power operating as a Master device relative to the other antennas of the plurality of antennas (increased transmit power of Master node while other nodes are low power where Master Node communicates between devices thus operates as a gateway, Paragraphs 5 and 33).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to increase the power of the gateway connected antenna to accommodate higher bandwidth, signal strength, and connection stability.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 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 Steven Lim whose telephone number is (571)270-1210. The examiner can normally be reached Mondays 9am-5pm, Tuesday-Friday 8:30am-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, Steven Lim can be reached at 571-270-1210. 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.
/STEVEN LIM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2688
