DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments/Amendments
1. 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have been fully considered; the newly amended claim language overcomes the previously applied rejection, which has been withdrawn.
2. Regarding the prior art rejection, the Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered, but are not persuasive. The Applicant argues that the newly amended claims overcome the previously cited prior art, Chaki (US 20240146581 A1). The Examiner disagrees. The Applicant argues that Chaki does not disclose forming one or more groups of two or more reflected signals grouped by time intervals, based on bandlimited functions. The Examiner disagrees, and points to Chaki, at paragraphs [0065 – 0067] and Fig. 6. Here, Chaki discloses multipath combining in an urban environment. While Fig. 6 depicts one multipath component from each building for the sake of simplicity, the way signals work is that you would not get one single multipath component from a single building. Related paragraph [0065] discusses a multipath propagation environment in which a signal “travels in separate ways… while reflecting from… buildings. This environment would result in multiple components from a single building. At paragraph [0069], Chaki further discloses grouping the multipath components by delay (ie by time interval). Regarding the bandlimited function portion of the limitation, Chaki discloses multiple bandlimited functions in the FFT combining of various functions. These are necessarily bandlimited, as they are finite. The Examiner also notes that the claim language, that the functions “correspond[] to individual [groups]” does not limit how they correspond to the groups, and does not preclude corresponding to multiple groups. Without further language limiting this, the Examiner understands this to read as only requiring any sort of relation between functions and groups. The Applicant’s arguments are therefore unpersuasive, and rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claim(s) 1 – 6, 13 – 15, 19, and 22 - 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Chaki (US 20240146581 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 one or more groups of two or more reflected wireless reference signals (SRS multipath components; see paragraph [0065] and Fig. 6) grouped according to respective time intervals in which the reflected wireless signals are received (signals are grouped based on delay; see paragraphs [0065 – 0069] and Fig. 6), to estimate one or more wireless channels (multipath components used for channel estimation; see paragraph [0066]) based, at least in part, on one or more bandlimited functions corresponding to individual ones of the one or more groups (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. The Examiner also notes that as the functions are related to the groups of signals because of the channel estimation, the functions correspond to the groups).
Regarding claims 2, 14, and 22, Chaki discloses 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 one or more bandlimited functions (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 discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chaki further discloses:
wherein the one or more bandlimited functions 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 discloses 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 processor (reflectors are between UE and BS; see Fig 6)
Regarding claims 5 and 25, Chaki discloses 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 discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chaki further discloses:
wherein the one or more wireless channels is associated with a 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 one or more groups of two or more reflected wireless reference signals (SRS multipath components; see paragraph [0065] and Fig. 6) grouped according to respective time intervals in which the reflected wireless signals are received (signals are grouped based on delay; see paragraphs [0065 – 0069] and Fig. 6), to estimate one or more wireless channels (multipath components used for channel estimation; see paragraph [0066]) based, at least in part, on one or more bandlimited functions corresponding to individual ones of the one or more groups (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. The Examiner also notes that as the functions are related to the groups of signals because of the channel estimation, the functions correspond to the groups).
one or more memories (memory; see Figs. 10 and 11) to store values of the one or more 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)
Regarding claim 19, Chaki discloses a method comprising:
estimating one or more wireless channels (multipath components used for channel estimation; see paragraph [0066]) with one or more groups of two or more reflected wireless signals (SRS multipath components; see paragraph [0065] and Fig. 6) grouped according to respective time intervals in which the reflected wireless signals are received (signals are grouped based on delay; see paragraphs [0065 – 0069] and Fig. 6) based, at least in part, on one or more bandlimited functions corresponding to individual ones of the one or more groups (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. The Examiner also notes that as the functions are related to the groups of signals because of the channel estimation, the functions correspond to the groups).
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.
4. Claim(s) 7 – 8, 11 – 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chaki Chaki (US 20240146581 A1) in view of Pezeshki (US 20230103220 A1)
Regarding claims 7 and 16, Chaki discloses 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 and Pezeshki teach the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chaki further discloses:
wherein the one or more 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 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 and Pezeshki teach the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. Chaki further discloses:
wherein the one or more groups of two or more reflected wireless reference signals are generated 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.))
5. 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 Pezeshki (US 20230103220 A1) in further view of Ko (US 20160050003 A1)
Regarding claims 9 and 17, Chaki 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 processor 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 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 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, 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 discloses 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 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, 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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