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 .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/17/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 9, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejections have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Wang and Kumar would not be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to combine. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Applicant also argues that the amendment to the independent claims incorporates the allowable subject matter from claims 7 and 17. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim language used in the instant amendment substantially differs from the language used in claims 7 and 17, such that there is a substantial difference in scope. As such, claims 1 and 11 are subject to a new 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejection and the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection has been modified to also be in view of Maleki (US 20220174603 A1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1, 3-6, 8-11,13-16, and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 11 recites the limitation “decoding paging information with deactivating the determined number of at least one patch element.” This is indefinite because it is not clear how “with deactivating” should be interpreted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 11, 13-14, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20240137101 A1) in view of Kumar (US 20230098778 A1) and Maleki (US 20220174603 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses:
“A method for adaptive antenna configuration in a user equipment comprising one or more antenna modules, each of the one or more antenna modules comprising a plurality of patch elements,” ([para 0055]: “A base station 105 or a UE 115 may be equipped with multiple antennas, which may be used to employ techniques such as transmit diversity, receive diversity, multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) communications, or beamforming. The antennas of a base station 105 or a UE 115 may be located within one or more antenna arrays or antenna panels, which may support MIMO operations or transmit or receive beamforming.”)
“the method comprising… determining whether a mobility of the UE is below a mobility threshold…” ([para 0078]: “In some examples, the NSA L1 of the UE 115-b may detect that the UE 115-b is no longer operating the high speed environment or that the additionally activated antennas are no longer needed (e.g., the UE transitioned from connected mode to idle mode).”)
“…determining at least one active antenna module among the one or more antenna modules, based on determining that the mobility of the UE is below the mobility threshold; determining a number of at least one patch element to be deactivated based on at least one antenna performance parameter; and deactivating the determined number of patch element in the determined at least one active antenna module,” ([para 0078]: “In either case, the UE 115-b may deactivate the one or more antennas that were activated for use during the high-speed scenario (e.g. the one or more antennas in the second antenna subset 320-a, the second antenna subset 320-b, or both that were activated for reception of the downlink message 325).” ; [para 0074]: “In another example, the UE 115-a may determine or detect that the UE 115-a is no longer operating in a high speed scenario, and the UE 115-a may notify the NSA L1 that the UE 115-a is no longer operating in the high speed scenario. In some examples, the NSA L1 may clean up the state (e.g. the NSA L1 may store a speed environment state that indicates that the UE 115-a is not operating in a high-speed environment), and the NSA L1 of the UE 115-a may resume an antenna algorithm or procedure that does not attempt to activate one or more additional antennas (e.g. the NSA L1 may employ an antenna toggling algorithm or procedure, a power saving algorithm or procedure, or another algorithm or procedure).”)
“receiving and decoding … information with deactivating the determined number of at least one patch element in the determined at least one active antenna module.” ([para 0096]: “At 435, the UE 115-c may receive the downlink message using one or more antennas of the first antenna subset, the second antenna subset, or both, based on the monitoring. “)
Wang does not explicitly disclose “determining whether a signal strength of the user equipment (UE) is above a signal threshold, ”that determining whether a mobility of the UE is below a mobility threshold is “based on determining that the signal strength is above the signal threshold,” nor that the information is “paging” information.
However, Kumar discloses the missing feature “determining whether a signal strength of the user equipment (UE) is above a signal threshold” and that determining whether a mobility of the UE is below a mobility threshold is “in response to determining that the signal strength is above the signal threshold.” ([para 0085]: “For example, if a received signal strength level (S.sub.rxlev) is greater than a threshold value (e.g., S.sub.noIntraSearchPos) and a received signal quality (S.sub.qual) is greater than a threshold value (e.g., S.sub.noIntraSearchQPos), then the UE 200 may determine it is in a low mobility state.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Wang and Kumar, to modify the determination of the UE mobility as disclosed by Wang, to be in response to signal strength as disclosed by Kumar. The motivation for determine the UE’s mobility in response to signal strength is that it is an efficient and flexible means of doing so, thus improving overall system efficiency and flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang with Kumar to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
However, Kumar also does not disclose the information is “paging” information.
Maleki discloses the missing feature that the information is “paging” information ([para 0103]: “In one embodiment, the network configures the UE to monitor PO PDCCH using a different number of antennas than used for PDSCH (e.g., a lower number to save power considering that paging is a single layer transmission). In one embodiment, the UE itself can decide to turn off a number of antennas (e.g., if SSB measurement results indicate good channel conditions to save power) or turn on additional antennas if channel conditions have weakened.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Wang and Kumar, to modify the technique as disclosed by Wang, to be used with paging information as disclosed by Kumar. The motivation for doing so is that paging information similarly benefits from the power savings. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang with Kumar to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Kumar and Maleki disclose all the features of the parent claim.
Wang further discloses “storing the number of patch elements to be deactivated in a memory together with its associated parameters, wherein the associated parameters include at least one of configuration id, application type, associated cell information, Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), and signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR).” ([para 0072]: “In one example, when the UE 115-a has decided to trigger initial access, the NSA L1 may identify the stored speed environment state for determining whether to enable additional antennas. For example, the NSA L1 of the UE 115-a may identify that the UE is operating in a high-speed environment and that four antennas are available.”)
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Kumar and Maleki disclose all the features of the parent claim.
Wang further discloses “wherein the plurality of patch elements corresponds to a plurality of phased array elements.” ([para 0055]: “The antennas of a base station 105 or a UE 115 may be located within one or more antenna arrays or antenna panels, which may support MIMO operations or transmit or receive beamforming.”)
Claims 11, 13 and 20 are similar to claims 1, 3 and 10 with the differences amounting to that claims 1, 3 and 10 are directed towards a method while claims 11, 13 and 20 are directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by Wang in paragraph 166. Thus, claims 11, 13 and 20 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 1, 3 and 10.
Claim(s) 4 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20240137101 A1) in view of Kumar (US 20230098778 A1), Maleki (US 20220174603 A1), and further in view of Palenius (US 20200252879 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Kumar and Maleki disclose all the features of the parent claim.
Wang does not explicitly disclose “wherein the plurality of antenna performance parameters includes at least one of an effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) transmission power, a block error rate (BLER) and antenna gain of the at least one active antenna module.”
However, Palenius discloses the missing feature “wherein the plurality of antenna performance parameters includes at least one of an effective isotropic radiated power (EIRP) transmission power, a block error rate (BLER) and antenna gain of the at least one active antenna module.” ([para 0054]: “Another way of determining the speed of the wireless communication device 301 is to analyse information comprised in block error rate (BLER) reports received from the wireless communication device 301, the analysis comprising analysis of periodicity and phase of BLER in relation to information about a plurality of positions of respective antenna nodes 310, 320, 330.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Wang and Palenius, to modify the technique as disclosed by Wang, to use BLER as a parameter as disclosed by Palenius. The motivation for doing so is that BLER is a standard parameters and thus using it increases system interoperability. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang with Palenius to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim 14 is similar to claim 4 with the differences amounting to that claim 4 is directed towards a method while claim 14 is directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by Wang in paragraph 166. Thus, claim 14 is rejected for similar reasons to claims 4.
Claim(s) 5-6, 9, 15-16, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (US 20240137101 A1) in view of Kumar (US 20230098778 A1), and Maleki (US 20220174603 A1), and further in view of Kwok (US 20190149200 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Kumar and Maleki disclose all the features of the parent claim.
Wang does not explicitly disclose “calculating a current plurality of antenna performance parameters after deactivating the at least one patch element; comparing the current plurality of antenna performance parameters with a predetermined plurality of antenna parameters; and deactivating or activating one or more patch elements of the at least one active module, based on a result of the comparison.”
However, Kwok discloses the missing feature “calculating a current plurality of antenna performance parameters after deactivating the at least one patch element; comparing the current plurality of antenna performance parameters with a predetermined plurality of antenna parameters; and deactivating or activating one or more patch elements of the at least one active module, based on a result of the comparison.” ([para 0011]: “When the signal strength is above a second predetermined level, but below the first predetermined level, the UE can use a diversity antenna mode for improved reception. If at least one of the one or more metrics falls below the second predetermined level, however, the UE can disable the diversity antenna mode and revert to a primary antenna mode to reduce cross-antenna interference and excessive retransmission, among other things.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Wang, Kumar, and Kwok to modify the technique as disclosed by Wang, to revert the antenna configuration if it results in a drop in performance as disclosed by Kwok. The motivation for doing so is that it allows a return to more optimum parameters, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang with Kumar and Kwok to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Kumar, Maleki, and Kwok disclose all the features of the parent claim.
Wang does not explicitly disclose “wherein the predetermined plurality of antenna parameters is determined before deactivation of the at least one patch element.”
However, Kwok discloses the missing feature “wherein the predetermined plurality of antenna parameters is determined before deactivation of the at least one patch element.” ([para 0011]: “When the signal strength is above a second predetermined level, but below the first predetermined level, the UE can use a diversity antenna mode for improved reception. If at least one of the one or more metrics falls below the second predetermined level, however, the UE can disable the diversity antenna mode and revert to a primary antenna mode to reduce cross-antenna interference and excessive retransmission, among other things.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Wang, Kumar, and Kwok to modify the technique as disclosed by Wang, to revert the antenna configuration if it results in a drop in performance as disclosed by Kwok. The motivation for doing so is that it allows a return to more optimum parameters, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang with Kumar and Kwok to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Kumar and Maleki disclose all the features of the parent claim.
Wang does not explicitly disclose “determining whether an uplink/downlink (UL/DL) activity of the UE is below a threshold; determining whether a block error rate (BLER) is within a specified range based on determining that the UL/DL activity of the UE is below the threshold; deactivating the one or more patch elements of the at least one antenna module based on determining that the BLER is within the specified range; monitoring change in the BLER after deactivation of the one or more patch elements; determining whether the change in the BLER is above a down threshold; and performing the UL/DL activity with the deactivated one or more patch elements, based on determining that the change in the BLER is above the down threshold.”
However, Kwok discloses the missing feature “determining whether an uplink/downlink (UL/DL) activity of the UE is below a threshold; determining whether a block error rate (BLER) is within a specified range based on determining that the UL/DL activity of the UE is below the threshold; deactivating the one or more patch elements of the at least one antenna module based on determining that the BLER is within the specified range; monitoring change in the BLER after deactivation of the one or more patch elements; determining whether the change in the BLER is above a down threshold; and performing the UL/DL activity with the deactivated one or more patch elements, based on determining that the change in the BLER is above the down threshold.” ([para 0011]: “When the signal strength is above a second predetermined level, but below the first predetermined level, the UE can use a diversity antenna mode for improved reception. If at least one of the one or more metrics falls below the second predetermined level, however, the UE can disable the diversity antenna mode and revert to a primary antenna mode to reduce cross-antenna interference and excessive retransmission, among other things.” ; [para 0018]: “The system 100 can monitor, for example, signal quality (e.g., SINR), the BLER, scheduling rate (SR), and other factors to determine when to switch between MIMO, diversity, and main antennas.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Wang, Kumar, and Kwok to modify the technique as disclosed by Wang, to revert the antenna configuration if it results in a drop in BLER as disclosed by Kwok. The motivation for doing so is that it allows a return to more optimum parameters, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Wang with Kumar and Kwok to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claims 15-16 and 19 are similar to claims 5-6 and 9 with the differences amounting to that claims 5-6 and 9 are directed towards a method while claims 15-16 and 19 are directed towards an apparatus containing generic hardware. Such hardware is taught by Wang in paragraph 166. Thus, claims 15-16 and 19 are rejected for similar reasons to claims 5-6 and 9.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 8 and 18 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, of the closest prior arts Wang (US 20240137101 A1) in view of Kumar (US 20230098778 A1) disclose all the features of the parent claim. However, Wang in view of Kumar does not disclose “determining whether the UE is to transmit or receive signalling information (SI); and transmitting or receiving the signalling information (SI) with the number of deactivated patch elements.” The cited references fail to anticipate or render the above limitations in combination with all the recited limitations of claims 8 obvious, over any of the prior art of record, alone or in combination. Claims 18 is similar to claim 8 and contains similar allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412