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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed June 22, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants submit that Feng fails to disclose, teach, or suggest this active determination step or subsequent processing loop. Throughout Feng's entire disclosure, Feng describes a preset network architecture where a plurality of access points are statically pre-configured or pre-scheduled by a central controller to operate in a specific configuration (such as a joint multi-AP "JMAP" setup) before a sounding sequence even begins.
As discussed below in the rejection, Examiner submits Feng teaches of scheduling joint transmission that is used by the plurality of collaborating APs over the plurality of communication channels (Paragraphs 0042 and 0051). Therefore, Feng teaches of scheduling or determining that joint transmission is used by the plurality of collaborating APs over the plurality of communication channels.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 20 – 21, 25 – 27 and 31 – 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Feng et al (US 2021/0126686) (as supported by the provisional application No 62/927,174).
Re claims 20, 26 and 32 – 33, Feng teaches of a method for determining channel state information (CSI) of a wireless channel by an access point (AP) (AP, Figures 1 – 2) of a plurality of collaborating APs (AP1, AP2, AP3, Figures 1 – 2 and Abstract), the method comprising: transmitting a sounding transmission (sounding, Paragraphs 0027, 0031, 0042 and 0045) to a plurality of stations (STAs) (STA1, STA2, STA3, Fig.2) over a plurality of communication channels (plurality of channels, Figures 1 – 2 and Paragraphs 0026 – 0042), the plurality of STAs including one or more STAs associated with the AP and one or more STAs associated with other ones of the plurality of collaborating APs (Paragraphs 0028 – 0029); obtaining, following the sounding transmission, a respective ∑ matrix and a V matrix pair from each STA of the plurality of STAs (∑ matrix and V matrix are fed back, Paragraphs 0034 and 0043), each of the ∑ matrix and the V matrix pair produced through a singular value decomposition of a STA-specific channel matrix indicative of CSI of a respective channel estimated by said STA of the plurality of STAs (SVD, Paragraphs 0030, 0034, 0041 and 0045), the respective channel being between said STA and the AP (as shown in Fig.2, where the respective channel Hi for STAi and AP1 is Hi1 and the aggregated channel is [Hi1, Hi2, Hi3] between the STAi and the three APs and Hi,j, ith STA and jth AP, Paragraph 0035), wherein each STA produces the ∑ matrix and the V matrix pair from an aggregated channels between the STA and all of the plurality of collaborating APs (joint sounding, SVD(Hi), where full-dimension channel matrix H, may be constructed as Hi=[Hi1, Hi2, . . . , Hi(Nap)], Paragraph 0030); reconstructing, by the AP, an overall aggregated matrix of the CSI based on the ∑ matrix and the V matrix pairs (reconstructed from singular values and V vectors, Paragraphs 0057 – 0058) received from both the one or more STAs associated with the AP and the one or more STAs associated with the other ones of the plurality of collaborating APs (“construct full dimension channel matrix Hi”, Page 2 of provisional application, “Jointly feedback CSI”, “We assume all fed back CSI’s are available at all APs”, “Pre-coding as JMAP”, “Pre-coding as CMAP”, Page 7 of provisional application, See also Paragraphs 0030 and 0054 – 0065 of non-provisional application); and determining that joint transmission is used by the plurality of collaborating APs over the plurality of communication channels (scheduling JMAP, Paragraph 0042) and subsequently computing a precoder matrix based on the aggregated matrix on the AP side conditioned upon determining that said joint transmission is used (precoding matrix computed for a scheduled JMAP transmission, Paragraphs 0046 and 0056 – 0061).
Re claims 21 and 27, Feng teaches of further comprising the AP communicating with one of the plurality of STAs using the precoder matrix with coordinated beam forming techniques (coordinated multi-AP (CMAP) configuration, Abstract).
Re claims 25 and 31, Feng teaches of wherein the overall aggregated matrix is limited to indicating channels between the AP and the plurality of STAs (as shown in Fig.2).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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.
Claims 22 – 24 and 28 – 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Feng in view of Kim et al (US 2015/0245373).
Re claims 22 and 28, Feng teaches all the limitations of claims 20 and 26 except of wherein the precoder matrix is a Zero-Forcing Beamforming (ZFBF) precoder matrix.
Kim teaches of a precoder matrix being a Zero-Forcing Beamforming (ZFBF) precoder matrix (Paragraphs 0008 and 0048).
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 precoder matrix be a Zero-Forcing Beamforming (ZFBF) precoder matrix for its low complexity.
Re claims 23 and 29, Feng teaches all the limitations of claims 20 and 26 except of wherein the precoder matrix is determined by taking a Pseudo-Inverse of part or all of the overall aggregated matrix.
Kim teaches of a precoder matrix determined by taking a Pseudo-Inverse of part or all of the overall aggregated matrix (Paragraph 0048).
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 precoder matrix determined by taking a Pseudo-Inverse of part or all of the overall aggregated matrix for ZFBF.
Re claims 24 and 30, Feng teaches all the limitations of claims 20 and 26 as well as Feng teaches of said part of the overall aggregated channel matrix being indicative of a channel between the AP and the one of the one or more STAs associated with the AP (H11, between AP1 and STA1, Fig.3) and further being indicative of another channel between the AP and one or more of the STAs associated with another one of the plurality of collaborating AP (H12, between AP2 and STA2, Fig.3). However, Feng do not specifically teach of wherein the precoder matrix is determined by taking a Pseudo-Inverse of part or all of the overall aggregated matrix.
Kim teaches of a precoder matrix determined by taking a Pseudo-Inverse of part or all of the overall aggregated matrix (Paragraph 0048).
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 precoder matrix determined by taking a Pseudo-Inverse of part or all of the overall aggregated matrix for ZFBF.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-5:00pm.
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 K Ahn can be reached on (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.
/ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights