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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 01/20/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment to the claims filed on 12/16/2025 complies with the requirements of 37 CFR 1.121(c) and has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's Arguments/Remarks filed 12/16/2025 (hereinafter Resp.) are fully considered as follows.
First, Applicant argues that “Chakraborty only discloses that the UE may have multiple subarrays to form multiple beams of independent polarization directions” but “there is no teaching or suggestion that the UE can generate multiple beams in multiple different geographic directions at the same time” – Resp.,12:¶2-13:¶1 and further points to Fig. 4 of Chakraborty et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20180063693 (hereinafter Chakraborty), concluding that “Chakraborty only discloses that the UE 466 may use multiple antenna subarrays (i.e., antenna subarrays SAl, SA2, SA3) to form multiple beams to the same base station 462, that is, the multiple beams are in the same geographic direction.” Examiner respectfully disagrees and points out that Chakraborty teaches that: (1) “each antenna subarray may be coupled to a 318). transceiver (e.g., an instance of the transceiver)” – See [¶0059] whereby the UE may be “operating each antenna subarray with the selected polarization(s) . . . according to the indication 506 on operating each antenna subarray” – See [¶0060] and Fig. 5. Therefore, a person of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate that: (1) when each antenna subarray is coupled to a transceiver, the UE is a multi-TRP hence may communicate with multiple base stations at the same time, whereby the base stations may be in different geographic locations1; and (2) when the multiple antenna arrays at the UE are each operated, each of them can be positioned and tilted in a desired direction (e.g., electronically) while applying to each of them various coding matrices to shape the formed beam2 based on the polarization characteristics of the antenna elements. Therefore, Applicant’s conclusion that “Chakraborty only discloses that the UE 466 may use multiple antenna subarrays (i.e., antenna subarrays SA1, SA2, SA3) to form multiple beams to the same base station 462, that is, the multiple beams are in the same geographic direction” does not account for Chakraborty’s disclosure of attaching each antenna array to a different transceiver and the knowledge regarding MIMO channels coding and mTRP/multi-panel simultaneous transmissions with different cells/carriers at the NR UE as it has been available in the art before the effective filing date of the present Application.
Second, Applicant argues that even though “Chakraborty implies the UE may have this capability-such as connecting to both the macro cell 102 and the small cell 102' simultaneously in dual connectivity-Chakraborty still fails to teach that the UE reports this capability to the network,” and because “Chakraborty does not disclose that the UE reports: (1) the independent beamforming capability of generating multiple beams in multiple different geographic directions at the same time, as required by the pending claims” (which it does, as explained supra) Chakraborty consequently cannot report: “(2) the number of the multiple beams that can be generated in multiple different geographic directions at the same time, and (3) the polarization modes for the multiple beams that can be generated in multiple different geographic directions at the same time.” Here, setting aside the questionable validity of the premise that Chakraborty does not disclose that the UE has an independent beamforming capability and can generate multiple beams simultaneously in multiple different geographic directions, the conclusion in Applicant’s argument is not aligned with the present disclosure. For example, Applicant’s conclusion requires that the present disclosure supports the UE reporting “the number of the multiple beams that can be generated in multiple different geographic directions at the same time.” Although the Specification discloses that the multi-beamforming capability of the UE may include “the number of independent beamforrning carriers supported by the terminal device” the important aspect here is “number of carriers” because “the network device may configure the number of the carriers transmitted by base stations not sharing the common site based on the number of independent beamforming carriers supported by the terminal device” – See [¶0068] (emphasis added). There is nowhere in the Specification the slightest intimation that the UE may report the number of the multiple beams that can be generated by the UE, as now required by the Amendment to independent claims, and a person of ordinary skill sin the art would understand “beamforming carriers” as mere component carriers or serving cells that perform beamforming. In addition, there is no definition of “independent beams” in the Specification and a person of ordinary skill sin the art would be unclear of what is the degree of freedom (DoF) claimed. Further on, Applicant’s conclusion requires that the present disclosure supports the UE reporting “the polarization modes for the multiple beams.” However, the Specification states in multiple paragraphs “a polarization mode corresponding to a beam” whereby the beam is obtained through “an independent beamforming supported by the terminal device,” – See [¶0069], [¶00233], and further explains that the “independent beamforming capability indicates the terminal device may have a capability of generating two or more beams with independent directions” – See [¶0052]. As known in the art, beams are generated by one or more antenna elements/arrays/panels with certain polarization characteristics at antenna/antenna array level, by applying certain precoders, the precoders using multi-panel codebooks3 that are calculated (based on UE’s feedback on channel state and number of antenna ports and transmission layers) and communicated by the base station to the UE to indicate the best Tx/Rx beam(s pair) to use, i.e., the beamforming procedure. Therefore, a person of ordinary skills in the art would not be reasonably appraised of how to report at once “the polarization modes for the multiple beams” when polarization modes are associated with antenna elements not with the beam generated by one or more antenna arrays. To be sure, Chakraborty discloses that “the UE 466 may report to the eNB 462 the beamforming capabilities (e.g., the UE antenna capability information including polarizations supported by each antenna subarray)” – See [¶0063]. In sum, Applicant’s argument fails to persuade when neither the premise nor the conclusion sits on solid grounds.
Lastly, Applicant argues that “3GPP TS 38.331 only addresses the number of carriers to be used; it does not address whether those carriers can operate in different geographic directions simultaneously” because “in dual connectivity scenario or multicarrier aggregation scenario, the same base station (at a same site) can have multiple secondary component carriers and the PCell and SCell can also be at the same base station” and because “the network can configure 3 secondary component carriers from the same base station, for example, respectively corresponding to the carriers of SA1, SA2 and SA3 of UE as shown in FIG. 4 of Chakraborty” – See Resp.,14:¶¶2-3. This argument fails to persuade for multiple reasons as explained hereinafter.
First, a person of ordinary skills in the art would agree that “carriers can operate in different geographic directions simultaneously” simply because multiple mobile phones receive carrier signal and operate while the multiple phones move around simultaneously in different geographic directions. Therefore, there is no need for a 3GPP technical specification to state a natural property of wireless communications, albeit the distance over which this property is maintained must be managed as part of a network planning. On the other hand, the number of carriers available or used for communication is a specified parameter.
Second, there is no doubt that the plain meaning of a UE in “dual connectivity scenario,” as understood by a person of ordinary skills in the art is that the UE is simultaneously connected to two base stations – See, e.g., § 4.5, 3GPP TS 38.300 V16.1.0 (2020-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; NR and NG-RAN Overall Description; Stage 2 (Release 16)” (hereinafter 3PP TS 38.300) stating, at page 21, “NG-RAN supports Multi-Radio Dual Connectivity (MR-DC) operation whereby a UE in RRC_CONNECTED is configured to utilise radio resources provided by two distinct schedulers, located in two different NG-RAN nodes connected via a non-ideal backhaul;” see also § 5.1.3, 3GPP TS 38.331 V16.0.0 (2020-03) “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 16)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.331) specifying the different meanings of MR-DC, each of them requiring UE configuration with a SecondaryCellGroup meaning there must be a second base station managing the cells in the SCG. However, here, DC is not required because the amended claims do not require the terminal to connect to base stations at different sites, but only to have the capability to form, simultaneously, multiple independent beams in multiple different directions to base stations at different sites. Such a capability is obvious for the UE in Chakraborty (having multiple antenna arrays that can be independently operated and connected to different transceivers) when sitting at the edge of a cell. To be sure, the claim language merely requires the terminal: (1) to “send multi-carrier communication capability information to a network device . . . to indicate the network device to perform a multi-carrier communication configuration for the terminal device,” “the network device to configure the number of carriers transmitted by base stations not sharing a common site,”; and (2) to include in the multi-carrier communication capability information a “capability of generating at the same moment multiple independent beams in multiple different directions to base stations at different sites,” i.e., the terminal may not have such capability and in that case “polarization modes corresponding to the multiple independent beams supported by the terminal device” may be null.
Third, Applicant’s argument against obviousness using (counter) examples such as “multiple secondary component carriers and the PCell and SCell can also be at the same base station” and “the network can configure 3 secondary component carriers from the same base station, for example, respectively corresponding to the carriers of SA1, SA2 and SA3 of UE as shown in FIG. 4 of Chakraborty” does not meet the burden of coming forward with arguments and/or evidence to rebut the prima facie case of obviousness – See, e.g., In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc), because arguments presented by applicant cannot take the place of factually supported objective evidence – See, e.g., In re Schulze, 346 F.2d 600, 602, 145 USPQ 716, 718 (CCPA 1965); In re De Blauwe, 736 F.2d 699, 705, 222 USPQ 191, 196 (Fed. Cir. 1984); see also MPEP § 2145. Here, Applicant should have proved that “multiple secondary component carriers and the PCell and SCell [are always] at the same base station” and/or “the network [cannot] configure 3 secondary component carriers from [different] base station, for example, respectively corresponding to the carriers of SA1, SA2 and SA3 of UE as shown in FIG. 4 of Chakraborty” – See In re Grose, 592 F.2d 1161, 1168, 201 USPQ 57, 63-64 (CCPA 1979) (“Failure of the prior art to disclose or render obvious a method for making any composition of matter, whether a compound or a mixture of compounds like a zeolite, precludes a conclusion that the composition would have been obvious.”) (emphasis added); and/or show evidence of any “secondary considerations” – See Graham v. John Deere Co. Co. of Kansas City, 383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966).
In sum, Applicant’s arguments are unpersuasive. In addition, these arguments are also moot because the feature “ability to support multiple beams in different geographic directions simultaneously” raised new grounds of rejection that do not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should Amended claims 1 and 11 be found allowable, claims 3 and 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Amended Claim 1, 11, and 20, and their dependent claims, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding Amended Claim 1, it now requires two limitations associated with the new feature a “number of multiple independent beams supported by the terminal device:” (1) that “the multi-beamforming capability” included in “the multi-carrier communication capability information” sent to the network device “comprises “a number of the multiple independent beams supported by the terminal device”; and (2) that “the number of the multiple independent beams supported by the terminal device is used by the network device to configure the number of carriers transmitted by base stations not sharing a common site.” While the Specification discloses that “the multi-beamforming capability may further include the number of independent beamforrning carriers supported by the terminal device” and “the network device may configure the number of the carriers transmitted by base stations not sharing the common site based on the number of independent beamforming carriers supported by the terminal device” – See [¶0068] (emphasis added) and further that “ the terminal device may generate multiple independent beams to be directed to the base stations in the same frequency band at different sites” – See [¶00145] (emphasis added) there is no disclosure that the terminal would report “a number of multiple independent beams” or of whether or how the network device would use that number to configure the number of carriers transmitted by base stations not sharing a common site – See, e.g., ¶00146] (stating only that: “the multiple independent beamforming capabilities which are supported by the terminal device . . . may be applicable to the multi-carrier communication between the frequency bands”) (emphasis added).
Because the Specification explains that “independent directions” and “independent beamforming carriers” are separate aspects of a UE’s “independent beamforming capability” – See [¶0052] (an “independent beamforming capability indicates the terminal device may have a capability of generating two or more beams with independent directions”) and [¶00147] (“multiple independent beamforming capabilities may simply indicate . . . the number of independent beamforming carriers which may be specifically supported by the terminal device”), a person of ordinary skills in the art would not find here at least an intimation of a way “a number of independent beams” is applicable to configure “the number of carriers transmitted by base stations,” when multiple beam directions and multiple carriers are independent concepts of the art4 and one carrier may support multiple BWPs, each BWP being covered by one or more beams. Amended Claims 11 and 20 suffer the same deficiency.
In sum, Amended Claims 1, 11, 20, and their dependent claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because they contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
Amended Claims 1, 11 and 20 now recite the limitation “polarization mode corresponding to the multiple independent beams”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The meaning of every term used in a claim should be apparent from the prior art or from the specification and drawings at the time the application is filed. Claim language may not be "ambiguous, vague, incoherent, opaque, or otherwise unclear in describing and defining the claimed invention." In re Packard, 751 F.3d 1307, 1311, 110 USPQ2d 1785, 1787 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Applicants need not confine themselves to the terminology used in the prior art, but are required to make clear and precise the terms that are used to define the invention whereby the metes and bounds of the claimed invention can be ascertained. During patent examination, the pending claims must be given the broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification. In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023, 1027 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 162 USPQ 541 (CCPA 1969). See MPEP §2173.05(a); see also MPEP § 2111 - § 2111.01.
Here, the claim language requires “polarization modes corresponding to the multiple independent beams” when a person of ordinary skills in the art would understand that one or more polarization modes are applied to an antenna element which may be polarized to generate one beam. The Specification states in multiple paragraphs “a polarization mode corresponding to a beam” – See, e.g., [¶0069], [¶00233], to which a person of ordinary skills may apply the aforementioned assumption. Therefore, the meaning of “polarization modes corresponding to the multiple independent beams” is unclear because polarization modes apply to physical antennae elements, e.g., vertical and/or horizontal, whereas the multiple beams are generated with multiple antennae, i.e., multiple antennae may generate one very directional beam or some number of overlapping multi-directional beams when some antennae are polarized in one mode and some in another mode and/or some in dual mode.
In sum, Claims 1, 11, and 20, as amended, and their dependent claims, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being indefinite. Applicant could clarify the requirement in response to this Office action.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 11, 13-14 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20180063693 (hereinafter Chakraborty), in view of Darsena et al., "Beamforming and Precoding Techniques" (or arXiv:2004.05079v1, available at
https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2004.05079 (hereinafter Darsena), published April 10, 2020, and references included therein .
Regarding Amended Claim 1, Chakraborty teaches a terminal device, comprising: a processor; and a memory configured to store a computer program (e.g., UE 350 in Fig. 3; “the apparatus may be a UE including a memory and at least one processor coupled to the memory” –See [¶0011]; and “[t]he controller/processor 359 can be associated with a memory 360 that stores program codes and data” – See [¶0048]); wherein execution of the computer program configures the processor to:
send multi-carrier communication capability information to a network device (“the UE 466 may report to the eNB the beamforming capabilities . . . supported by the UE 466 using a message for carrying UE capability information,” e.g., “the UE 466 may report the beamforming capabilities using a UECapabilityInformation message” – See [¶0063] and Figs. 5-6 whereby “the UE 466 may report multicarrier configuration information” – See [¶0076]; see also 3GPP TS 38.331 (cited also by Darsena infra), specifying, at page 279, the IE UECapabilityInformation message “used to transfer UE radio access capabilities requested by the network,” comprising multiple ueCapabilityInformation elements as a list of radio access technology specific capability containers, e.g., at page 663, describing UE-MRDC-Capability “used to convey the UE Radio Access Capability Parameters for MR-DC, see TS 38.306]” and at page 664, describing UE-NR-Capability “used to convey the NR UE Radio Access Capability Parameters, see TS 38.306” each of them containing a list of FeatureSetCombinations for supportedBandCombinationList defined for both Uplink and Downlink, specifying at page 621 the BandCombinationList IE comprising “a list of NR CA and/or MR-DC band combinations (also including DL only or UL only band),” at page 631, the FeatureSetDownlinkPerCC IE “indicates a set of features that the UE supports on the corresponding carrier of one band entry of a band combination” and at page 635, FeatureSetUplinkPerCC IE “indicates a set of features that the UE supports on the corresponding carrier of one band entry of a band combination”)
wherein the multi-carrier communication capability information is configured to indicate the network device to perform a multi-carrier communication configuration for the terminal device (“The communication links 120 between the base stations 102 and the UEs 104 may include uplink (UL) (also referred to as reverse link) transmissions from a UE 104 to a base station 102 and/or downlink (DL) (also referred to as forward link) transmissions from a base station 102 to a UE 104. The communication links 120 may use MIMO antenna technology, including spatial multiplexing, beamforming, and/or transmit diversity. The communication links may be through one or more carriers” – See [¶0035], e.g., “the mmW communications may support component carriers of 100 MHz and 8 component carriers” – See [¶0038] and “the UE 466 may report, to the eNB 462, the UE antenna capability information in response to the general inquiry. For example, the inquiry may be an inquiry for carrier aggregation information” – See [¶0062] so “the UE antenna capability information 504 may further include multicarrier dimensionality” e.g., “[w]hen the subarray SA3 is used, this subarray SA3 may support both H-polarization with component carrier 1 and V-polarization with component carrier 2” – See [¶0076]; see also 3GPP TS 38.331, describing at page 655 the UE capability information element RF-Parameters “used to convey RF-related capabilities for NR operation” including multiple TCI/beam support per frequency band and channel bandwidth per frequency band and subcarrier spacing, and at page 637, the UE capability information element FreqBandList “used by the network to request NR CA and/or MR-DC band combinations for specific NR and/or E-UTRA frequency bands and/or up to a specific number of carriers and/or up to specific aggregated bandwidth. This is also used to request feature sets (for NR) and feature set combinations (for NR and MR-DC)”)
wherein the multi-carrier communication capability information comprises a multi-beamforming capability5 (“[a]s part of the beamforming process, the space for beam search (at the transmitter and receiver side, respectively) may be represented by a codebook containing multiple codewords. The best transmit/receive beams (e.g., transmit/receive beams with the highest signal strength) may found by searching through the respective codebooks” – See [¶0056]; see also 3GPP TS 38.331, at page 626, describing UE Capability Information Element CodebookParameters “used to convey codebook related parameters” including whether the UE is a single panel or a multi panel UE; furthermore, because “the UE 466 may report the UE antenna capability information 504 in the UECapabilityinformation message” including “a number of supported subarrays, subarray identifiers corresponding to respective supported subarrays, and a supported polarization mode for each subarray identifier” – See [¶0069] wherein “each antenna subarray may be coupled to a transceiver,” hence independently operated/polarized – See [¶0059], a base station “may transmit, for example, the beam pairs and the codebook restrictions to the UE 466 as an indication 506 to operate the antenna subarray with the at least one polarization” and “codebook restrictions may be useful for the UE 466 to form beams with specific subarrays (e.g., the subarray SA 1)” – See [¶0075] i.e., the UE may form beams with each independently operated subarray)
the multi-beamforming capability comprises an independent beamforming capability of generating at the same moment multiple independent beams in multiple different directions to base stations at different sites (“the UE antenna capability information 504 may provide that different beams and/or different subarrays may use different component carriers” the “multicarrier dimensionality (for example, in conjunction with the polarization supported),” – See [¶0076] i.e., not only that the UE may form beams with each specific subarray, but each subarray and its polarization may be associated with a different carrier, e.g., “the subarray SA1 may support H-polarization only with component carrier 1, and the subarray SA2 may support V-polarization only with component carrier 2” – See [¶0076] whereby a person of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate that for a UE configured in DC, carrier 1, in one frequency band, may be used with a first base station and carrier 2, in a different frequency band, with a second base station because, as explained in § 5.6, 3GPP TS 38.331, at page 159, when the UE transmits UE capabilities to a requesting base station, “[t]he UE shall ensure that the feature set IDs are consistent across feature sets, feature set combinations and band combinations in all three UE capability containers that the network queries with the same fields with the same values, i.e. UE-CapabilityRequestFilterNR and fields in UECapabilityEnquiry message (i.e. requestedFreqBandsNR-MRDC, requestedCapabilityNR and eutra-nr-only flag)” and “Capability enquiry without frequencyBandListFilter is not supported” and “In EN-DC, the gNB needs the capabilities for RAT types nr and eutra-nr and it uses the featureSets in the UE-NR-Capability together with the featureSetCombinations in the UE-MRDC-Capability to determine the NR UE capabilities for the supported MRDC band combinations. Similarly, the eNB needs the capabilities for RAT types eutra and eutra-nr and it uses the featureSetsEUTRA in the UE-EUTRA-Capability together with the featureSetCombinations in the UE-MRDC-Capability to determine the E-UTRA UE capabilities for the supported MRDC band combinations. Hence, the IDs used in the featureSets must match the IDs referred to in featureSetCombinations across all three containers,” i.e., each base station of a dual-connectivity UE6 requests and receives only capability information corresponding to its RAT and frequency bands, therefore, the UE is capable of forming multiple independent beams in multiple different directions to base stations at different sites at least to connect to each of these base stations and/or to receive the broadcasted System Information for the cell(s) served by each base station, e.g., the PCell of the primary node/MN and the PSCell of the secondary node/SN, these connections being simultaneously maintained7; in addition multiple Tx/Rx beam pairs are used simultaneously because each node/base station “may transmit, for example, the beam pairs and the codebook restrictions to the UE 466 as an indication 506 to operate the antenna subarray with the at least one polarization” and “the indication 506 may include one or more beam pairs” – See [¶0075], and “Each of the base stations 102 may provide communication coverage for a respective geographic coverage area 110” whereby “[t]he communication links 120 between the base stations 102 and the UEs 104 . . . may use MIMO antenna technology, including spatial multiplexing, beamforming, and/or transmit diversity” and “[t]he communication links may be through one or more carriers” – See [¶0035])
the multi-beamforming capability further comprises polarization modes corresponding to the multiple independent beams (“the UE 466 may report to the eNB 462 the beamforming capabilities (e.g., the UE antenna capability information including polarizations supported by each antenna subarray)” e.g., using “dual polarization capability in the UECapabilityinformation message” – See [¶0063]; “the UE antenna capability information 504 may indicate that a first antenna subarray identifier (e.g., identifying SA1) supports the H-polarization and that a second antenna subarray identifier (e.g., identifying SA2) supports the V-polarization” and “may further specify subarray(s) that may simultaneously support H-polarization and H-polarization or simultaneously support H-polarization and V-polarization” or the UE “may move from one location to another location, resulting in changes in the communication conditions ( e.g., detected by the UE 466 as part of the periodic beam training)” and “may update the subarray configurations based on the changes in the communication conditions, and may report to the eNB 462 the updated subarray configurations” – See [¶0065]; because “each antenna subarray may be coupled to a transceiver,” hence independently operated/polarized – See [¶0059]; furthermore, “Based on the received UE antenna capability information 504, the eNB 462 may determine, for example, various restrictions on operating each antenna subarray of the UE 466 . . . with vertical and/or horizontal polarization of the UE 466. The eNB 462 may transmit to the UE 466 an indication (e.g., the various restrictions) 506 on operating each antenna subarray with the selected polarization(s). Subsequently, the eNB 462 and the UE 466 may communicate according to the indication 506 on operating each antenna subarray” – See [¶0060], e.g., “the eNB 462 and the UE 466 may determine two beam pairs, beam pair 1 =(Tx_beam_H, Rx_beam_H) and beam pair 2=(Tx_beam_V, Rx_beam_ V) to improve throughput and/or robustness, based on the information provided in the UE antenna capability information 504. The beam pairs may be updated dynamically based on changing communication conditions and/or changes in the UE antenna capability information 504,” – See [¶0066] i.e., the UE capability information comprises polarization modes corresponding to the subarrays polarizations used to independently form four beams during the beamforming process)
wherein the multi-beamforming capability further comprises a number of the multiple independent beams supported by the terminal device (e.g., “the eNB 462 and the UE 466 may determine two beam pairs, beam pair 1 =(Tx_beam_H, Rx_beam_H) and beam pair 2=(Tx_beam_V, Rx_beam_ V) to improve throughput and/or robustness, based on the information provided in the UE antenna capability information 504” – See id.; see also 3GPP TS 38.331, specifying, at page 643, the UE Capability IE MIMO-Layers comprising maxNumberConfiguredTCIstatesPerCC, i.e., beams per CC and also per DL BWP, maxNumberRxBeam, and maxNumberActiveSpatialRelations maintained for UL transmissions, in sum, a number of the multiple independent beams supported by the terminal device);
wherein the number of the multiple independent beams supported by the terminal device is used by the network device to configure the number of carriers transmitted by base stations not sharing a common site (e.g., when “the subarray SA1 may support H-polarization only with component carrier 1, and the subarray SA2 may support V-polarization only with component carrier 2” as reported in “the UE antenna capability information 504” – See [¶0076] the network device, e.g., an MN may configure its PCell on carrier 1 and may configure the PSCell of the SN on carrier 2, e.g., over the Xn interface between the MN and the SN, as explained in Footnote 7).
Although Chakraborty explicitly teaches UECapabilityInformation message as the reporting the beamforming capabilities that “may be a part of an initial setup procedure to establish an RRC connection” – See [¶0063], i.e., as specified by 3GPP TS 38.331, Chakraborty does not explain how the UE is capable of generating at the same moment multiple independent beams in multiple different directions.
Darsena teaches “beamforming and precoding/combining are techniques aimed at processing multiantenna signals at the transmitter and/or at the receiver of a wireless communication system” including for “5G NR . . . natively designed also to work in the higher millimeter-wave (MMW) band” – See Abstract.
Darsena includes by reference, at page 31, 3GPP Technical Specifications describing a UE in multi-carrier or dual-connectivity with multiple simultaneous DL and UL transmissions on different components carriers/cells operated by the primary node/MN and the secondary node/SN – See 3GPP TS 38.101-3 V16.3.0 (2020-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; User Equipment (UE) radio transmission and reception; Part 3: Range 1 and Range 2 Interworking operation with other radios (Release 16)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.101-3), specifying in § 5.5B, at page 57, that “for EN-DC or NE-DC configurations . . . for which the intermodulation products caused by the dual and triple uplink operation fall into the receive band but do not interfere with its own primary downlink channel bandwidth of PCell or PSCell as defined in Annex I the UE is mandated to operate in dual and triple uplink mode”; see also 3GPP TS 37.340, for further details on UE dual connectivity8.
Darsena, like Chakraborty, teaches, at page 3, the UE having “multiple antennas that can be used for transmit/receive beamforming . . . traditionally associated with array processing or smart antennas” whereby “multidimensional signal processing techniques for multiantenna systems have also been referred to as precoding at the TX and decoding (or combining) at the RX” and with “no common consensus about the meaning of the terms “beamforming” and “precoding” in the technical literature . . . use them interchangeably to denote any kind of spatial processing of signals in a multiantenna system,” in “mMIMO implementations [that] rely on two-dimensional (2D) array structures, to accommodate a large number of antennas without significantly increasing the deployment space” – See id., at page 4. Darsena, like Chakraborty, further teaches that “digital beamforming scheme” more suitable in lower frequencies, e.g. FR1 band, “requires one dedicated radio frequency (RF) chain per antenna element” – See id., and Figure 1 at page 26, i.e., the UE may practically use each antenna independently or in collaboration, or hybrid beamforming schemes may be used wherein “each RF chain is connected to all antennas” or “each RF chain is connected only to a subset of antennas, forming a subarray” – See id., at page 8, and Figure 3, at page 26, while “analog beamforming is suited to scenarios where the energy comes from a small number of dominant directions, including the line-of-sight (LOS) scenario” – See id., at page 8, and Figure 2, at page 26. Specifically, Darsena teaches, at page 9, that “particular partially-connected hybrid structures, referred to as multi-panel arrays, have been extensively evaluated and discussed within 3GPP during NR standardization” referencing Huang et al., "Multi-Panel MIMO in 5G," in IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 56-61, March 2018, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2018.1700832. (hereinafter Huang), and concludes, at page 15, that in UL “[a] fundamental difference between NR and LTE is that a device can transmit multiple SRS over separate and relatively wide beams (Figure 6). For example, these beams may correspond to different device antenna panels pointing to different directions”; see also Figure 5, at page 27, showing single panel and multi-panel configurations for antennae with dual orthogonal polarizations.
Huang, discussing multi-panel antenna arrays and multi-panel MIMO codebook design, specifically teaches, at page 59, Uplink multi-panel MIMO at the UE side, stating that “[m]ulti-panel antennas provide possibility and flexibility for UE to form both transmitter beamforming and receiver beamforming. Since the antenna panels can be largely spaced, UE can form multiple receiving and transmitting beamforming simultaneously” e.g., “UE could form multiple beams pointing in different directions simultaneously” including a case where “different beams of the UE need to access different panels,” i.e., may be independently formed, one per panel/antenna array9.
Thus, Chakraborty and Darsena each teaches a UE with multiple antennae arrays each array (or subarray) with comprising elements capable of one or two polarizations and each array independently connected to a transceiver and used to form multiple beams with one or more base stations. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the multiple antennae arrays UE sending its multi-carrier, multi-beam beamforming capabilities, including the arrays, the polarization mode of each array and carriers associated with each array polarization, to a requesting base station via UECapabilityInformation RRC message to that base station, including a case where the UE is in DC, as further described in 3GPP specifications, could have been improved with a hybrid beamforming procedure wherein each RF chain is connected only to a subset of antennas (a subarray), therefore becoming a multi-panel MIMO UE capable of forming multiple receiving and transmitting beams simultaneously in multiple directions as taught in Darsena (further referencing Huang). Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the improvement through techniques known in the art. Finally, the improvement achieves the predictable result of applying 5G NR beamforming procedures to the UE in Chakraborty whereby “implementations below 6 GHz will use (similarly to LTE) fully-digital architectures” and “MMW implementations . . . hybrid beamforming architectures” as taught in Darsena, at page 9.
In addition, Darsena, like Chakraborty, teaches at page 13-14, CSI-feedback based codebooks for single-panel and multi-panel antennae, whereby, for example, “Type-II CSI is oriented to multiple-beam operation, allowing to report up to 4 orthogonal beams” received by the UE. Furthermore, just like the UE in Chakraborty can be restricted by a base station “based on the received UE antenna capability information” and “the codebook restriction may be subarray specific” – See [¶0073], Darsena teaches, at page 15, that “NR specifications allow for different coherence capabilities of the UE, referred to as full coherence, partial coherence, and no coherence. Accordingly, only a subset of the codebook can be chosen to match the UE antenna coherence capability.”
In sum, Amended Claim 1 is obvious over Chakraborty in view of Darsena.
Regarding Amended Claim 3, dependent from Amended Claim 1, Chakraborty further teaches wherein the multi-beamforming capability comprises whether the terminal device supports a plurality of independent beamforming capabilities (“UEs may be capable of reusing the same hardware (e.g. RF chains) for spatial diversity (single-layer MIMO) and/or dual-polarization MIMO” – See [¶0007]; and “[t]he UE antenna capability information 504 may include a number of supported subarrays, subarray identifiers corresponding to respective supported subarrays, and a supported polarization mode for each subarray identifier”– See [¶0069] and Table 1, whereby “each antenna subarray may be coupled to a transceiver” – See [¶0059], i.e,, the UE has a plurality of independent beamforming capabilities including one beam per array; in addition, “the eNB 462 may select a codebook restriction (e.g., in terms of throughput and/or robustness). . . the codebook restriction may provide a specific subarray polarization and the corresponding transmission rank or ranks” – See [¶0074], therefore the multi-beamforming capability comprises the plurality of independent beamforming capabilities indicated through codebooks; see also 3GPP TS 38.331:626-267 teaches the CodebookParameters information element (IE) is used to convey codebook related parameters including number of panels and polarization mode per panel). In addition, Darsena teaches, at page 15, that an NR UE “can transmit multiple SRS over separate and relatively wide beams (Figure 6). For example, these beams may correspond to different device antenna panels pointing to different directions,” whereby, for example, “each RF chain is connected only to a subset of antennas, forming a subarray,” like in Chakraborty, therefore the UE has a plurality of independent beamforming capabilities.
In sum, Claim 3 is obvious over Chakraborty in view of Darsena.
Regarding Claim 4, dependent from Amended Claim 3, Chakraborty teaches the terminal device according to claim 3, wherein whether the terminal device supports a plurality of independent beamforming capabilities, comprises at least one of:
the terminal device supporting a plurality of independent beamforming capabilities in a frequency band (“The millimeter wave (mm W) base station 180 may operate in mmW frequencies and/or near mmW frequencies in communication with the UE 182” in “a frequency band of 30 GHz to 300GHz and a wavelength between 1 millimeter and 10 millimeters” and “the mmW communications may support component carriers of 100 MHz [channel bandwidth] and 8 component carriers”– See [¶0038] and Fig. 1 whereby “the UE 466 may include hardware for performing analog, digital, and/or hybrid beamforming (e.g., for mmW communication)” – See [¶0053] and mmW communications using “high carrier frequency on the order of 30-60 GHz” – See [¶0056], are also known in 3GPP as FR2 bands10). In addition, Darsena teaches, at page 9, that the “sub-connected architecture . . . is expected to be more energy-efficient and easier to be implemented in MMW MIMO systems” and “particular partially-connected hybrid structures, referred to as multi-panel arrays, have been extensively evaluated and discussed within 3GPP during NR standardization” exhibiting independent beamforming capabilities as explained in Regarding Amended Claim 1 supra.
Therefore, Claim 4 is obvious over Chakraborty in view of Darsena.
Regarding Amended Claim 11, Chakraborty teaches a method of receiving, by a network device, multi-carrier communication capability information from a terminal device (“The diagram 500 includes the eNB 462 communicating with the UE 466 regarding the reporting of the UE antenna capability information” and “the UE 466 may report to the eNB 462 the UE antenna capability information 504” – See [¶0060] wherein “the UE antenna capability information 504 may provide that different beams and/or different subarrays may use different component carriers” – See [¶0076]); and
performing a multi-carrier communication configuration for the terminal device based on the multi-carrier communication capability information (“the eNB 462 may determine operations for an antenna subarray and the polarization supported based on the information listed in the UE antenna capability information 504” – See [¶0066], e.g., “the eNB 462 may select a codebook restriction (e.g., in terms of throughput and/or robustness) based on the received UE antenna capability information 504” and “the UE 466 may identify a precoder from a given codebook (i.e., precoder that defines set of eNB antenna coefficient weights) to improve the signal quality and consequently the data throughput” – See [¶0073])
wherein the same limitations as recited in the Amended Claim 1, using the same language, are applied.
Because these limitations are obvious over Chakraborty in view of Darsena, Amended Claim 11 is obvious over Chakraborty in view of Darsena.
Regarding Claims 13-14, as amended, dependent from Amended Claim 11, they merely recite the limitations disclosed in Claims 3-4, respectively, using the same language and with no other limitations, only applied to the network device of Amended Claim 11. Because each of Claims 3-4 and 11, as amended, is obvious over Chakraborty in view of Darsena, Claims 13-14, are obvious over Chakraborty in view of Darsena.
Regarding Amended Claim 20, Chakraborty discloses a network device comprising: a processor; and a memory configured to store a computer program; wherein execution of the processor is configured to execute the computer program stored in the memory receiving, by a network device, multi-carrier communication capability information from a terminal device (“a base station including a memory and at least one processor coupled to the memory. The at least one processor is configured to” and “a computer-readable medium storing computer executable code for a base station includes code to: receive, from a UE, antenna capability information of the UE” – See [¶0016]; and “a block diagram of an eNB 310 in communication with a UE 350 in an access network” is shown in Fig. 3 – See [¶0045]); and implementing the steps of Amended Claim 11, recited with the same language. Because the method disclosed in Amended Claim 11 is obvious over Chakraborty in view of Darsena, Amended Claim 20 is also obvious over Chakraborty in view of Darsena.
In sum, Claims 1, 3-4, 11, 13-14, and 20, as amended, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chakraborty in view of Darsena.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chakraborty in view of Darsena as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Zhou et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0288757 (hereinafter Zhou).
Regarding Claim 15, dependent from Claim 13, the method disclosed by Chakraborty in view of Darsena, describes a UE configured with dual-connectivity, i.e., configured via RRC by a master node and/or a secondary node based on UECapabilityInformation IE sent via RRC connection to a primary node/MN and a secondary node/SN, whereby a person of ordinary skills in the art would appreciate that in DC the SN can also send RRCReconfiguration messages to the UE, e.g., for performing the multi-carrier communication (re)configuration in response to receiving an RRC message comprising UE capabilities information. However, Chakraborty in view of Darsena does not teach the case wherein performing the multi-carrier communication configuration for the terminal device based on the multi-carrier communication capability information, comprises configuring, by a second network device, the terminal device to perform a multi-carrier communication
in response to the terminal device not supporting the plurality of independent beamforming capabilities;
wherein the configuring, by a second network device, the terminal device to perform a multicarrier communication in response to the terminal device not supporting the plurality of independent beamforming capabilities, comprises at least one of:
configuring, by the second network device, the terminal device to perform a multicarrier communication in a frequency band in response to the terminal device not supporting a plurality of independent beamforming capabilities in the frequency band.
Zhou, like Chakraborty, teaches in Fig. 1 a “wireless communications system 100 may support communication with a UE 115 on multiple cells or carriers” – See [¶0060] and “[b]eamforming, which may also be referred to as spatial filtering, directional transmission, or directional reception, is a signal processing technique that may be used at a transmitting device or a receiving device ( e.g., a base station 105 or a UE 115) to shape or steer an antenna beam (e.g., a transmit beam or receive beam) along a spatial path between the transmitting device and the receiving device. Beamforming may be achieved by combining the signals communicated via antenna elements of an antenna array such that signals propagating at particular orientations with respect to an antenna array experience constructive interference while others experience destructive interference. The adjustment of signals communicated via the antenna elements may include a transmitting device or a receiving device applying certain amplitude and phase offsets to signals carried via each of the antenna elements associated with the device. The adjustments associated with each of the antenna elements may be defined by a beamforming weight set associated with a particular orientation (e.g., with respect to the antenna array of the transmitting device or receiving device, or with respect to some other orientation),” i.e., beamforming using a codebook of antenna weights – See [¶0061].
Zhou further teaches the terminal device not supporting the plurality of independent beamforming capabilities in the frequency band of mmW/FR2 (“A receiving device (e.g., a UE 115, which may be an example of a mmWave receiving device)” that “may use a single receive beam to receive along a single beam direction” – See [¶0063], i.e., does not have a plurality of independent beamforming capabilities and “base station 105 may receive directional transmissions from UE 115a and UE 115b when monitoring the path of a transmit beam 205 (e.g., in a particular direction)” – See [¶0073] and Fig. 3).
Zhou further teaches the single beam device connected to a second network device operating in FR1/sub-6 GHZ frequency bands (“UE 402 can receive and decode transmissions from both the serving cell 401 and the network node 403 contemporaneously,” e.g., when configured in DC, and has “one antenna array for receiving mm Wave communications and at least one omni-directional for receiving sub-6 GHz communications” – See [¶0076] and Fig. 4 wherein a “serving cell 401 operates at a higher mmWave frequency than the network node 403, which operates at a sub-6 GHZ frequency” – See [¶0075], e.g., when the serving cell belongs to an NR MN and the other node is an LTE SN or vice-versa11).
Zhou further teaches that the second network device, working in sub-6 GHZ frequency band configures, the terminal device to perform a multicarrier communication in FR2/mmW frequency band using communication in FR1 band in response to the terminal device not supporting a plurality of independent beamforming capabilities in the FR2/mmW frequency band or frequency band combination (“Since network node 403 is communicating with serving cell 401 any adjustments made to the repetition configuration by the serving cell 401 can be communicated to the network node 403, which can then update repetition configuration information 420 to the UE 402” whereby “configuration information 420 is sent at a sub-6 GHz frequency to the UE 402,” i.e., “at a lower frequency, network node 403 may transmit repetition configuration information 420 in an onmi-directional transmission” – See [¶0077]; “[t]hus, UE 402 is no longer required to use blind decoding to receive and decode the original signal received on one beam” from the serving cell – See [¶0078]).
Thus, Zhou and Chakraborty in view of Dasena each discloses a multi-carrier communication terminal device with at least one beam formed in the mmWave/FR2 frequency band and configured with dual connectivity with a second node. A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention would have understood that the method of configuring the multi-carrier communication terminal in Chakraborty in view of Darsena using UECapabilityInformation IE to configure the UE supported frequency band and number of supported carriers, in a case where the UE has reduced capability such as a single directional antenna or antenna array forming one directional beam in the mmWave/FR2 frequency band, i.e., lacks capacity for a plurality of independent beamforming capabilities e.g., due to limited power, could have been improved upon by a (macro or master) base station transmitting the configuration in that frequency band at a lower frequency in an omni-directional transmission to the terminal, as taught in Zhou, because the UE can readily pick up the omnidirectional signal from this second node and improve position of the single mmW antenna for small/secondary cell reception. Furthermore, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out the improvement through techniques known in the art. Finally, the improvement allows the terminal to form a beam with the first node without blindly decoding on the same or another beam when not knowing the directions for the beamforming which reduces processing time and power consumption required to accommodate the computational complexity of various training and weighting algorithms as taught by Zhou.
Therefore, Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Chakraborty in view of Darsena, and further in view of Zhou.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Gil et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2018/0205436 discloses massive antenna-based pattern/polarization beam division multiple access method includes generating a plurality of beam sectors for each antenna array by using a plurality of pattern/polarization antenna arrays and performing MIMO transmission in each of the plurality of beam sectors, wherein the plurality of pattern/polarization antenna arrays each have a different radiation pattern;
YU et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0266058 discloses antenna array circuitry for analog beamforming, the antenna array circuitry comprising: a plurality of antenna elements, wherein each antenna element is configured to receive a respective analog signal;
Blanda et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0245269 discloses an antenna structure configured for simultaneous communication over multiple channels or with multiple locations;
Wu et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021/0091834 as used in previous Office action;
Lin, U.S. Patent Application No. 2022/0337473, discloses a method of performing beam failure recovery (BFR) procedure in primary cell and secondary cells whereby a UE is configured to operate in one or multiple frequency bands under carrier aggregation or dual connectivity;
Ingale et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 2018/0359790, discloses initial access and beamforming in dual connectivity mode;
Black et al., U.S. Patent Application No. 20160373181, discloses beamforming in small cells, whereby an adjacent node may include adjusting the holographic beamforming antenna to provide a sequence of search beam patterns;
3GPP TS 38.401 V16.1.0 (2020-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NG-RAN; Architecture description (Release 16)”;
3GPP TS 36.331 V16.0.0 (2020-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA); Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol specification (Release 16)”;
3GPP TS 37.340 V16.1.0 (2020-03), “Evolved Universal Terrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) and NR; Multi-connectivity; Stage 2 (Release 16)”;
3GPP TR 36.872 V12.1.0 (2013-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Small cell enhancements for E-UTRA and E-UTRAN- Physical layer aspects (Release 12)”;
3GPP TS 38.300 V16.1.0 (2020-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; NR and NG-RAN Overall Description; Stage 2 (Release 16)”;
3GPP TS 38.331 V16.0.0 (2020-03) “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC) protocol specification (Release 16)”;
3GPP TS 38.101-3 V16.3.0 (2020-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; User Equipment (UE) radio transmission and reception; Part 3: Range 1 and Range 2 Interworking operation with other radios (Release 16)”;
3GPP TS 28.541 V16.4.1 (2020-03), “Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects; Management and orchestration; 5G Network Resource Model (NRM); Stage 2 and stage 3 (Release 16)”;
3GPP TS 38.202, V16.0.0 (2019-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Services provided by the physical layer (Release 16)”;
3GPP TS 38.214 V16.1.0 (2020-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Physical layer procedures for data (Release 16)”;
3GPP TS 38.306 V16.0.0 (2020-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; User Equipment (UE) radio access capabilities (Release 16)”;
Final Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #99 v1.0.0, R1-2000151, Source: MCC Support, November 2019, Agenda Item 7.2.8;
3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #86, R1-166109, Title: “Antenna structure: impact on MIMO transmission and remaining modeling issues,” Source: Huawei, HiSilicon, August 2016;
Li et al, “Beam Management in Millimeter-Wave Communications for 5G and Beyond,” IEEE Access, Vol. 8, 2020, published January 1, 2020, DOI 10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2963514;
Kim, “Dual Connectivity in Heterogeneous Small Cell Networks with mmWave Backhauls,” Hindawi Publishing Corporation, Mobile Information Systems Volume 2016, Article ID 3983467, http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2016/3983467;
Jha et al., “Dual Connectivity in LTE Small Cell Networks,” Globecom 2014 Workshop on Heterogenous and Small Cell Networks, 2014, available on IEEE Xplore;
Huang et al., "Multi-Panel MIMO in 5G," in IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 56-61, March 2018, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2018.1700832.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LUCIA GHEORGHE GRADINARIU whose telephone number is (571)272-1377. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am - 5:00pm EST.
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, Joseph AVELLINO can be reached at (571)272-3905. 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.
/L.G.G./ Examiner, Art Unit 2478
/JOSEPH E AVELLINO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2478
1 See, e.g., Huang et al., "Multi-Panel MIMO in 5G," in IEEE Communications Magazine, vol. 56, no. 3, pp. 56-61, March 2018, doi: 10.1109/MCOM.2018.1700832, (hereinafter Huang) describing in the Introduction, at page 56, a multi-panel MIMO system, with “more than one antenna panels, where multiple radio frequency integrated circuits (RFICs) are integrated in each antenna panel” and also “[t]he UE may use one or multiple antenna panels for transmitting data streams according to its abilities,” further stating, at page 59, under Beam Management, that “Multi-panel antennas provide possibility and flexibility for UE to form both transmitter beamforming and receiver beamforming. Since the antenna panels can be largely spaced, UE can form multiple receiving and transmitting beamforming simultaneously,” e.g., the “UE could form multiple beams pointing in different directions simultaneously.”
2 See, e.g., 3GPP TS 28.541 V16.4.1 (2020-03), “Technical Specification Group Services and System Aspects;
Management and orchestration; 5G Network Resource Model (NRM); Stage 2 and stage 3 (Release 16)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 28.541) specifying in § 4.3.40, at page 46, beam information attributes for beams in a NRSectorCarrier: “Beam can have spatial attributes of horizontal/azimuth (ie: Phi φ-axis) and vertical/tilt (ie: Theta θ-axis) beam pointing direction and beam width attributes” determined based on “TS 38.104 [12] relates to beam transmission, TS 38.215 [55] to beam measurements, and TS 38.331 [54] to reporting of those measurements and associated beam failure Information Elements, clauses 5.5.3, 5.5.5.2, 6.3.2. 6.2.2” whereby the NRSectorCarrier “represents the resources of each transmission point included in the cell. These in general have different physical locations (of the antennae), and possibly different frequencies or bandwidths” – See id., § 4.3.6.1, at page 31-32; while 3GPP TS 28.541 describes antenna arrays/panels from the base station perspective, the same concepts apply to a multi-panel UE – See, e.g., 3GPP TS 38.202, V16.0.0 (2019-12), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network;
NR; Services provided by the physical layer (Release 16)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.202), describing in § 6, at page 12-15, simultaneous transmission and reception of physical channels and physical signals at the UE to/from multiple cells, indicating that multiple transmissions in RRC_CONNECTED mode with a PCell and an SCell/PSCell support “combinations [that] are subject to the UE capability [for receiving multi-DCI-based multi-TRP/multi-panel transmissions]”; see also Final Report of 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 #99 v1.0.0 (Reno, USA, 18th – 22nd November 2019), § 7.2.8 Enhancements on MIMO for NR, referencing contributions related to Type-II (MIMO) codebook, enhancements on Multi-TRP/Panel Transmission and on Multi-beam Operation.
3 See, e.g., Huang, at page 57, describing multi-panel codebook design for dual polarized antenna arrays wherein antenna elements with the same polarization in one panel are equally spaced in the vertical or horizontal direction; see also Chakraborty:[¶0056] (“As part of the beamforming operation, codebooks in the eNB 462 and the UE 466 may be utilized”).
4 See, e.g., 3GPP TS 38.331 V16.0.0 (2020-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Radio Resource Control (RRC); Protocol specification (Release 16)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.331) describing in § 6.3.3 UE capabilities reporting as Information Elements (IE), including, at page 621, the BandCombinationList IE comprising “a list of NR CA and/or MR-DC band combinations (also including DL only or UL only band),” at page 631, the FeatureSetDownlinkPerCC IE “indicates a set of features that the UE supports on the corresponding carrier of one band entry of a band combination” including maximum number of MIMO layers, at page 635, FeatureSetUplinkPerCC IE “indicates a set of features that the UE supports on the corresponding carrier of one band entry of a band combination” and at page 643, the “MIMO-ParametersPerBand is used to convey MIMO related parameters specific for a certain band” including the active beam states per BWP, the number of Rx beams and the spatial relations configured for UL, at page 590, the SRS-Config IE “used to configure sounding reference signal transmissions” that indicate the spatial relationship of UE’s Tx beams direction and position as “the spatial relation between a reference RS and the target SRS. Reference RS can be SSB/CSI-RS/SRS (see TS 38.214 [19], clause 6.2.1)” ; see also § 5.2.2.4 describing how an UE acquires System Information including DL and UL frequency band lists, carrier bandwidth for the subcarrier spacing (SCS) used in each bandwidth part (BWP) on each carrier; see also § 5.5, at page 118, describing reporting configuration of a UE including “quantities per cell and per beam that the UE includes in the measurement report (e.g. RSRP) and other associated information such as the maximum number of cells and the maximum number beams per cell to report”; at page 325-326, the BWP Information Element “used to configure generic parameters of a bandwidth part as defined in TS 38.211 [16], clause 4.5, and TS 38.213 [13], clause 12” whereby “[f]or each serving cell the network configures at least an initial downlink bandwidth part and one (if the serving cell is configured with an uplink) or two (if using supplementary uplink (SUL)) initial uplink bandwidth parts” and “may configure additional uplink and downlink bandwidth parts for a serving cell”; at page 343-347 the CodebookConfig Information Element “used to configure codebooks of Type-I and Type-II (see TS 38.214 [19], clause 5.2.2.2)” at the UE, including the number of panels and the number of beams, as further described in 3GPP TS 38.214 V16.1.0 (2020-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; NR; Physical layer procedures for data (Release 16)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 38.214) describing, e.g., in § 5.2.2.2.5, at page 83, the Table 5.2.2.2.5-1 of codebook parameter configurations for a multi panel UE with L number of beams applicable to each subband of a BWP configured to the UE.
5 The Specification states that “independent beamforming capability indicates the terminal device may have a capability of generating two or more beams with independent directions” – See [¶0052]
6 See also § 4.2.7.1, 3GPP TS 38.306 V16.0.0 (2020-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network;
NR; User Equipment (UE) radio access capabilities (Release 16)” describing, at page 15, the parameters of the BandCombinationList IE specified in 3GPP TS 38.331 supra, including the band combination parameters for a given EN-DC band combination and the feature set that the UE supports on the NR and/or MR-DC band combination by FeatureSetCombinationId, and, at page 19, additional BandNR parameters including whether “[t]he UE that fulfils the beam correspondence requirement without the uplink beam sweeping (as specified in TS 38.101-2 [3], clause 6.6),” e.g., via codebook or MAC CE or DCI TCI indication and spatialRelations iindicates whether the UE supports spatial relations, i.e., whether the UE is configured with a set of beam/spatial-filter association that the UE can reuse (e.g. same spatial filter with SSB#i/CSI-RS #i/SRS #i).
7See, e.g., Figures 4.3.1.1-1 and 4.3.2.1-1, and § 4.3.2.1, at page 13, explaining common MR-DC principles, 3GPP TS 37.340 V16.1.0 (2020-03), “Technical Specification Group Radio Access Network; Evolved UniversalTerrestrial Radio Access (E-UTRA) and NR; Multi-connectivity; Stage 2 (Release 16)” (hereinafter 3GPP TS 37.340).
8 Section 4, 3GPP TS 37.340, at page 8, describes “a multiple Rx/Tx capable UE may be configured to utilise resources provided by two different nodes connected via non-ideal backhaul” whereby “[o]ne node acts as the MN and the other as the SN,” §5, at page 14, “In MR-DC, two or more Component Carriers (CCs) may be aggregated over two cell groups” and a “UE may simultaneously receive or transmit on multiple CCs depending on its capabilities. The maximum number of configured CCs for a UE is 32 for DL and UL,”; §7.10, at page 20, that “the UE can be configured to report MCG specific UE assistance information if the MN is a gNB and/or SCG specific UE assistance information if the SN is a gNB” whereby “an adjustment on . . . the maximum number of secondary component carriers” is sent from the MN to the SN, as described in §7.4, at page 18, regarding handling combined MN/SN RRC messages;
9 Huang references 3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #86, R1-166109, Title: “Antenna structure: impact on MIMO transmission and remaining modeling issues,” Source: Huawei, HiSilicon, August 2016 (hereinafter 3GPP R1-166109), disclosing in § 3.1, at page 2 that in NR“QCL assumption might no longer hold if different antenna ports are virtualized from different antenna panels and the antenna ports from different panel are beamformed with steering to different directions,” and in § 4.1.2, at page 3-4, a UE antenna array structure with 4 panels in Figure 2(b).
10 3GPP TS 38.331:637-638 provides that one of UE’s capabilities is the FreqBandList IE that is “used by the network to request NR CA and/or MR-DC band combinations for specific NR and/or E-UTRA frequency bands and/or up to a specific number of carriers and/or up to specific aggregated bandwidth,” and another UE capability is the BandCombinationList IE that “contains a list of NR CA and/or MR-DC band combinations” supported by the UE – See id.:621-623
11 See, e.g., Darsena, at page 4, “many multiantenna solutions for NR are natural evolutions of those employed in LTE, especially when working at lower FR1 frequencies. However, the adoption of multiantenna techniques at
higher MMW frequencies typical of FR2 will be a disruptive and challenging technology in NR.”
