Application No. 14/625,625
`Reply to Office Action dated July 31, 2017
`
`REMARKS
`
`After entry of the foregoing amendment, claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7 and 8 will be pending
`
`in the present application. Claims 1 and 4 are amended. Claims 3 and 6 are cancelled in the
`
`present response. Applicant submits that no new matter has been introduced in the present
`
`application by the foregoing amendment. Support for the amendment may, for example, be
`
`found in at least Figure 7 of the present application and its accompanying description.
`
`Examiner Interview
`
`An Examiner interview was conducted for the present application on October 11,
`
`2017 with Examiners Pervin and Gregory. The undersigned represented Applicant in the
`
`interview. In the Examiner interview, claim 1 was discussed. Although no agreement was
`
`reached with respect to the pending claims, Applicant thanks Examiners Pervin and Gregory for
`
`granting the interview and for their time and consideration.
`
`
`Claim Re 'ections , 35 U.S.C.
`102 and 35 U.S.C. 103:
`
`Claims 1 and 4 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(1) as being anticipated by
`
`US. Patent No. 7,606,531 to Asai et al. (hereinafter “Asai”). Claims 2 and 5 were rejected under
`
`35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Asai, in view of US. Patent No. 6,754,467 to Ide et
`
`al. (hereinafter “Ide”). Claims 3 and 6 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable
`
`over Asai, in view of Ide and US. Patent No. 4,720,712 to Brookner et al. (hereinafter
`
`“Brookner”). Claims 7 and 8 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over
`
`Asai, and in view of Brookner.
`
`Claim 1, amended, recites:
`
`A wireless communication device comprising:
`a directivity controller which,
`in operation, selects a first antenna
`directivityfor a communication partner by coarse-setting,
`reception quality estimation circuitry which,
`in operation, measures a
`reception quality of a signal intended for another wireless communication device
`that is not a communication partner, in the case where the signal intendedfor the
`
`

`

`Application No. 14/625,625
`Reply to Office Action dated July 31, 2017
`
`another wireless communication device is received by a plurality of antennas
`using the first antenna directivity during a communication period of the another
`wireless communication device, wherein:
`in the case where the signal intended for the another wireless
`communication device is received during the communication period of the
`another wireless communication device, the directivity controller selects a
`second antenna directivity by fine-setting on a basis of the first antenna
`directivity, based on the reception quality of the signal intended for the
`another wireless communication device; and
`a directiVity switch which,
`in operation, switches a directiVity of the
`plurality of antennas from the first antenna directiVity to the second antenna
`directivity, and wherein:
`in the case where the signal intended for the another wireless
`communication device
`is
`received in a period other
`than the
`communication period of the another wireless communication device, the
`directivity switch maintains the directivity of the multiple of antennas at
`the first antenna directivity.
`[Emphasis added]
`
`Applicant submits that at least the above-emphasized subject matter of claim 1 is
`
`not disclosed or suggested by the cited references.
`
`Asai discloses a “repeater 100 [that] includes [a] receiving antenna 101,
`
`received-power measuring unit 110 [and] a directivity control unit 111 connected to the
`
`received-power measuring unit 110.” Asai discloses that the directiVity control unit 111 is
`
`connected to the transmitting antennas 105, 106 (6:47—67, Figure 5 reproduced below).
`
`$3!
`ww-
`
`{.ow\\
`@313
`{ .
`‘
`a...» 2. g
`WRggERfifY Cflmmimo F333;? :
`133%);
`Lemma sameness {smmfim \W- T E
`mamas: EMMGABSEF, memes «
`.
`-‘
`l
`L
`‘3» 5-414
`‘.
`
`.1
`
`
`
`‘5 :5
`“I
`,, “‘
`WWWMMW ;
`mrwm SiWALE
`gsatfiwmm
`\Hi‘l
`= WW
`NW»
`N...
`sz.
`N23 \3W»-:3} Al) mamnm ism
`nmemmmnmmnmn
`5. g?.
`"""
`{.QWEWQ mamas: (ammo:
`i,
`,2 3'
`3..
`g s \
`mfifiefififi mar mmamamsmx
`..Eu “5
`”w"
`
`M aw~-
`x"
`‘\ Miriam
`{X
`3" swam»:
`xx"
`w
`‘
`«31.3
`.......3
`
`,.
`m
`.....3...
`7 A }
`KM...l...“mi
`“ W
`
`(Figure 5 of Asai)
`
`

`

`Application No. 14/625,625
`Reply to Office Action dated July 31, 2017
`
`Asai discloses that in the repeater “the output of the radiation in a direction that
`
`causes the loop interference from the transmitting antennas to the receiving antennas is reduced.”
`
`Asai discloses that initially the transmitting antenna 105 transmits a directivity adjustment signal.
`
`Asai discloses that “[t]he received-power measuring unit 110 measures the received power of the
`
`directivity adjustment signal at the receiving antenna 101,” and “the directivity control unit 111
`
`controls the directivity of the transmitting antenna 105 based on the measured received power,”
`
`where “[fjor example, the directivity control unit 111 controls the directivity of the transmitting
`
`antenna 105 so that the received power measured by the received-power measuring unit 110
`
`becomes small” (7: 1—36).
`
`Brookner discloses a beamforming apparatus that “directs one of the beams at a
`
`desired signal source and an additional beam at each one of a number of interfering signal
`
`sources,” where “[t]e signals within the additional beams are weighted and then subtracted from
`
`the signals in the desired signal directed beam to substantially cancel the interfering signals from
`
`the desired signal” (2:54—61). Ide discloses comparing “a level of the received signal for each
`
`path” and with a “level of the received signal corresponding to the currently selected path as a
`
`reference, a difference between the level of the other signal and that of the reference is obtained.”
`
`Ide discloses that when the levels are not equal, “the current path is continuously used as the
`
`transmission path” (7:9—41).
`
`However, Asai, Brookner and Ide do not disclose or suggest the above-
`
`emphasized elements of claim 1.
`
`None of the cited references disclose or suggest “select[ing] a first antenna
`
`directivity for a communication partner by coarse-setting” and “select[ing] a second antenna
`
`directivity by fine-setting on a basis of the first antenna directivity,” where the fine-setting is
`
`performed “based on the reception quality of the signal intended for the another wireless
`
`communication device” as recited in claim 1. None of the cited references disclose or suggest
`
`any difference in the coarseness or fineness of antenna directivity selection. Particularly, none of
`
`the cited references disclose or suggest coarse-setting at an initial step and then “fine-setting” on
`
`a basis of the coarse-set directivity. Further, the cited references do not disclose that the fine-
`
`

`

`Application No. 14/625,625
`Reply to Office Action dated July 31, 2017
`
`setting is performed based on a reception quality of a signal intended for another wireless
`
`communication device. The cited references do not disclose such details of coarse and fine
`
`setting and the relationship of the f1ne-setting to the reception quality of a signal intended for
`
`another wireless communication device.
`
`Asai only discloses adjusting the directivity of a transmitting antenna to minimize
`
`the power received by a receiving antenna on the same device. Brookner discloses directing
`
`antenna beams at both a desired signal source and each interfering signal source. Brookner
`
`discloses, in post-processing, subtracting the interference beams from the desired signal beams to
`
`improve reception. Ide only discloses when to switch or keep a transmission path. However,
`
`Asai, Brookner and Ide do not disclose or suggest the above-discussed features related to coarse-
`
`and fine-setting.
`
`Further, the cited references do not disclose or suggest switching or not switching
`
`antenna directivity based on a time period during which “signal intended for the another wireless
`
`communication device is received.” The cited references do not disclose or suggest using the
`
`time period as a condition to determine whether to “select[] a second antenna directivity by fine-
`
`setting” or “maintain[] the directivity of the multiple of antennas at the first antenna directivity”
`
`as recited in claim 1.
`
`The cited references are silent on “select[ing] a second antenna directivity by fine-
`
`setting” when “the signal intended for the another wireless communication device is received
`
`during the communication period of the another wireless communication device.” The cited
`
`references are silent on “maintain[ing] the directivity of the multiple of antennas at the first
`
`antenna directivity” when “the signal intended for the another wireless communication device is
`
`received in a period other than the communication period of the another wireless communication
`
`device.” The cited references do not link maintaining or switching a directivity to any time
`
`period, let alone a time period when a signal intended for another wireless communication device
`
`is received. The cited references do not disclose maintaining or switching a directivity based on
`
`a time period when a signal intended for another wireless communication device is received or
`
`the bifurcation recited in claim 1.
`
`

`

`Application No. 14/625,625
`Reply to Office Action dated July 31, 2017
`
`Thus, claim 1 is patentable in view of the cited reference and withdrawal of the
`
`pending 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection of claim 1 is respectfully requested.
`
`Furthermore, claims 2 and 8 are dependent on claim 1 and are, therefore,
`
`patentable in view of the cited references for at least the same reasons recited above and by
`
`virtue of their respective dependencies. Accordingly, withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C. §103
`
`rejections of claims 2 and 8 is respectfully requested.
`
`Although not identical in scope or language, the allowability of claims 4, 5 and 7
`
`will be apparent in view of the reasons recited above. Accordingly, withdrawal of the 35 U.S.C.
`
`§102 and the 35 U.S.C. §103 rejections of claims 4, 5 and 7 is respectfully requested.
`
`Conclusion:
`
`The Director is authorized to charge any additional fees due by way of this
`
`Amendment, or credit any overpayment, to our Deposit Account No. 19-1090.
`
`All of the claims remaining in the application are now allowable. Favorable
`
`consideration and a Notice of Allowance are earnestly solicited.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SEED Intellectual Property Law Group LLP
`
`/Baha A. Obeidat/
`
`Baha A. Obeidat
`
`Registration No. 66,827
`
`BAO:tfb
`
`701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5400
`Seattle, Washington 98104-7092
`Phone:
`(206) 622-4900
`Fax: (206) 682-6031
`
`569801371
`
`