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
1. 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/05/26 has been entered.
Response to Arguments/Amendments
2. Regarding the 35 USC § 112(b) rejection, the Applicant’s amendments have been fully considered; the newly amended claim language overcomes the previously applied rejection, which has been withdrawn.
3. Regarding the prior art rejection, the Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection presented below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
4. Claims 1 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains 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, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 recites determining two bandlimited functions corresponding to groups of reflected wireless signals. Claim 1 further requires estimating “one or more wireless channels” based on the first and second bandlimited functions. There is support in the original disclosure for determining a channel corresponding to an individual group/an individual function (in other words, support for the “or more” wireless channels), but the Examiner does not find support for estimating a single channel based on both bandlimited functions corresponding to both groups. Further, it would not make sense to do so, given that the different groups are associated with different channels. The claim is therefore rejected. The other independent claims re treated similarly.
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.
5. Claim(s) 1 – 6, 13 – 15, 19, and 22 - 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaki (US 20240146581 A1) in view of Yamazaki (US 20190274131 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Chaki discloses subject matter relating to multipath combining. Specifically, Chaki discloses a processor (processor; see Figs. 10 and 11) comprising:
circuitry (processor; see Figs. 10 and 11) to
use at least a first group and second group of reflected wireless signals, the first group including two or more reflected wireless reference signals received within a first time interval and the second group including two or more reflected wireless signals received within a second time interval different from the first time interval (multiple SRS multipath components; see paragraph [0065] and Fig. 6; signals are grouped based on delay; see paragraphs [0065 – 0069] and Fig. 6; signals take different routes (i.e. would be received in different time intervals); see paragraph [0065])
determine a first bandlimited function corresponding to the first group and a second bandlimited function corresponding to the second group (multipath components used for channel estimation; see paragraph [0066]; channel estimation is performed on FFT results of signals from channel; see paragraphs [0072 – 0073] and Fig. 10; the Examiner notes that as this calculation is carried out by a finite system, the signal cannot have an infinite amount of frequency components and must therefore be bandlimited)
estimate one or more channels based, at least in part on the first bandlimited function and the second bandlimited function (channel estimation is performed on FFT results of signals from channel; see paragraphs [0072 – 0073]; The Examiner notes that as the functions are related to the groups of signals because of the channel estimation, the groups correspond to the functions)
Chaki does not explicitly disclose the groups including two or more reflected signals, although explicitly discloses at least one per group (see Fig. 6 and associated disclosure).
However, Yamazaki discloses subject matter relating to multipath. Specifically, Yamazaki discloses multipath combining (see paragraph [0091]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Chaki with Yamazaki by specifying that the groups are not simply single reflected signals, but multiple signals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so, as this would allow for a stronger received signal. Further, this is well known in the art and so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claims 2, 14, and 22, Chaki and Yamazaki teach the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chaki further discloses:
wherein the one or more wireless channels based, at least in part on a sum of the first bandlimited function and the second bandlimited function (channel estimation is performed on FFT results of signals from channel; see paragraphs [0072 – 0073] and Fig. 10; the Examiner notes that the “based, at least in part” language is fulfilled by any relation whatsoever between the channel and the function).
Regarding claims 3, 15, and 23, Chaki and Yamazaki teach the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chaki further discloses:
wherein the first bandlimited function and the second bandlimited function are associated with one or more cluster of reflectors (multipath components are a function of reflectors; see Fig. 6)
Regarding claims 4 and 24, Chaki and Yamazaki teach the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chaki further discloses:
wherein the one or more cluster of reflectors are between one or more user devices and a base station which includes the one or more processors (reflectors are between UE and BS; see Fig 6)
Regarding claims 5 and 25, Chaki and Yamazaki teach the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chaki further discloses:
wherein the one or more wireless channels are between one or more user devices and a base station (channels are between UE and BS; see Fig. 6)
Regarding claim 6, Chaki and Yamazaki teach the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chaki further discloses:
wherein the one or more wireless channels are associated with one or more carrier frequencies (multipath components are decomposed into subcarriers; see paragraphs [0079 – 0083]; the Examiner notes that channels in cellular communications are associated with carrier frequencies)
Regarding claim 13, Chaki discloses a system (see Fig. 2) comprising:
one or more processors (processor; see Figs. 10 and 11) to use at least a first group and second group of reflected wireless signals, the first group including two or more reflected wireless reference signals received within a first time interval and the second group including two or more reflected wireless signals received within a second time interval different from the first time interval (multiple SRS multipath components; see paragraph [0065] and Fig. 6; signals are grouped based on delay; see paragraphs [0065 – 0069] and Fig. 6; signals take different routes (i.e. would be received in different time intervals); see paragraph [0065])
determine a first bandlimited function corresponding to the first group and a second bandlimited function corresponding to the second group (multipath components used for channel estimation; see paragraph [0066]; channel estimation is performed on FFT results of signals from channel; see paragraphs [0072 – 0073] and Fig. 10; the Examiner notes that as this calculation is carried out by a finite system, the signal cannot have an infinite amount of frequency components and must therefore be bandlimited)
estimate one or more channels based, at least in part on the first bandlimited function and the second bandlimited function (channel estimation is performed on FFT results of signals from channel; see paragraphs [0072 – 0073]; The Examiner notes that as the functions are related to the groups of signals because of the channel estimation, the groups correspond to the functions)
one or more memories (memory; see Figs. 10 and 11) to store values of the first bandlimited functions and the second bandlimited functions (FFT, IFFT, channel estimator, and channel predictor are used to process the bandlimited signals (i.e. comprise memory storing values of the signals); see Fig. 10 and associated descriptions)
Chaki does not explicitly disclose the groups including two or more reflected signals, although explicitly discloses at least one per group (see Fig. 6 and associated disclosure).
However, Yamazaki discloses subject matter relating to multipath. Specifically, Yamazaki discloses multipath combining (see paragraph [0091]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Chaki with Yamazaki by specifying that the groups are not simply single reflected signals, but multiple signals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so, as this would allow for a stronger received signal. Further, this is well known in the art and so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claim 19, Chaki discloses a method comprising:
using at least a first group and second group of reflected wireless signals, the first group including two or more reflected wireless reference signals received within a first time interval and the second group including two or more reflected wireless signals received within a second time interval different from the first time interval (multiple SRS multipath components; see paragraph [0065] and Fig. 6; signals are grouped based on delay; see paragraphs [0065 – 0069] and Fig. 6; signals take different routes (i.e. would be received in different time intervals); see paragraph [0065])
determine a first bandlimited function corresponding to the first group and a second bandlimited function corresponding to the second group (multipath components used for channel estimation; see paragraph [0066]; channel estimation is performed on FFT results of signals from channel; see paragraphs [0072 – 0073] and Fig. 10; the Examiner notes that as this calculation is carried out by a finite system, the signal cannot have an infinite amount of frequency components and must therefore be bandlimited)
estimate one or more channels based, at least in part on the first bandlimited function and the second bandlimited function (channel estimation is performed on FFT results of signals from channel; see paragraphs [0072 – 0073]; The Examiner notes that as the functions are related to the groups of signals because of the channel estimation, the groups correspond to the functions)
Chaki does not explicitly disclose the groups including two or more reflected signals, although explicitly discloses at least one per group (see Fig. 6 and associated disclosure).
However, Yamazaki discloses subject matter relating to multipath. Specifically, Yamazaki discloses multipath combining (see paragraph [0091]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Chaki with Yamazaki by specifying that the groups are not simply single reflected signals, but multiple signals. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to do so, as this would allow for a stronger received signal. Further, this is well known in the art and so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
6. Claim(s) 7 – 8, 11 – 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaki (US 20240146581 A1) in view of Yamazaki (US 20190274131 A1) and in further view of Pezeshki (US 20230103220 A1)
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Chaki and Yamazaki teach the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chaki further discloses:
wherein the one or more circuits are communicatively coupled to one or more antenna arrays that include one or more horizontal antennas and one or more vertical antennas (antenna array; see paragraph [0072])
Chaki does not explicitly disclose the polarity of the component antennas.
Pezeshki discloses subject matter relating to antenna arrays used for channel estimation. Specifically, Pezeshki discloses horizontal and vertical antenna polarization (see paragraph [0102])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Chaki with Pezeshki by specifying that the antenna array of Chaki comprise horizontal and vertical antennas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, as Chaki discloses antennas having different angles, and this allows for better beam coverage. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claim 8, Chaki, Yamazaki, and Pezeshki teach the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chaki further discloses:
wherein the first bandlimited function and the second bandlimited functions are further associated with the one or more horizontal antennas and the one or more vertical antennas (channel estimation is performed on FFT results of signals from channel; see paragraphs [0072 – 0073] and Fig. 10; the Examiner notes that, as detailed in the rejection of claim 1, the processed signals are bandlimited, and further understands the word “associate” to encompass at least the signals being transmitted and received by the antennas).
Regarding claim 11, Chaki, Yamazaki and Pezeshki teach the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chaki further discloses:
wherein the one or more antenna arrays are multi-user multi-input-multi-output (MU-MIMO) antenna arrays (MU-MIMO; see paragraph [0007])
Regarding claim 12, Chaki, Yamazaki, and Pezeshki teach the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chaki further discloses:
wherein the first group and the second group of reflected wireless reference signals result from reflections from one or more cluster of reflectors (reflectors are e.g. buildings; see paragraph [0065] and Fig. 6; the Examiner notes that a building is a cluster of reflectors (e.g. windows, doors, walls, etc.))
7. Claim(s) 9 – 10, 17 – 18, and 20 - 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaki (US 20240146581 A1) in view of Yamazaki (US 20190274131 A1) in view of Pezeshki (US 20230103220 A1) in further view of Ko (US 20160050003 A1)
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Chaki, Yamazaki, and Pezeshki teach the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chaki further discloses:
wherein the one or more circuits are a first one or more circuits, wherein the one or more processors comprises a second one or more circuits, wherein the second one or more circuits are to adjust one or more characteristics of the one or more horizontal antennas and the one or more vertical antennas based, at least in part, on the estimate of the one or more wireless channels (processor; see Figs. 10 and 11)
Chaki, Yamazaki, and Prezeshki do not explicitly teach the adjustment based on channel estimate.
Ko discloses subject matter relating to antenna arrays. Specifically, Ko discloses adjusting the direction of a beam (see paragraph [0214]); the Examiner notes that this is done based on channel estimation, as the channel estimation is used to provide the feedback loop that allows the beam to be steered.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Chaki, Yamazaki, and Prezeshki with Ko by adjusting the antennas based on the channel estimate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have done so, as the idea of adapting antenna characteristics to maximize performance is well known in the art.
Regarding claims 10 and 18, Chaki, Yamazaki, Pezeshki, and Ko teach the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. The limitation of claim 10 is rejected using the same art and same reasoning as the parent claim.
Regarding claim 20, Chaki and Yamazaki teach the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chaki further discloses:
adjusting one or more characteristics of one or more horizontal antennas and one or more vertical antennas based, at least in part, on estimating the one or more wireless channels (antenna array; see paragraph [0072])
Chaki does not disclose the remainder of the claim limitations.
Pezeshki discloses horizontal and vertical antenna polarization (see paragraph [0102])
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of Chaki with Pezeshki by specifying that the antenna array of Chaki comprise horizontal and vertical antennas. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, as Chaki discloses antennas having different angles, and this allows for better beam coverage. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Chaki Yamazaki, and Prezeshki do not explicitly teach doing so based on channel estimation.
Ko discloses adjusting the direction of a beam (see paragraph [0214]); the Examiner notes that this is done based on channel estimation, as the channel estimation is used to provide the feedback loop that allows the beam to be steered.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the teaching of Chaki and Prezeshki with Ko by adjusting the antennas based on the channel estimate. One of ordinary skill in the art would have done so, as the idea of adapting antenna characteristics to maximize performance is well known in the art.
Regarding claim 21, Chaki, Yamazaki, Pezeshki, and Ko teach the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. The limitation of claim 21 is rejected using the same art and same reasoning as the parent claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Tsattanis – US 20200186397 A1 - Multipath
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN STEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9825. The examiner can normally be reached M - R 08:00 - 16:00; F 08:00 - 12:00.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 5712723139. 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.
/S.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464
Prosecution Insights