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 Amendment
The amendment filed January 9, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-30 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed January 9, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On pp. 10 and 11 of Applicant’s response, Applicant argues the cited references fail to teach “perform an independent time processing for the multiple transmissions over the set of multiple symbols, wherein the independent time processing includes combining the multiple transmissions over the set of multiple symbols based on the set of adaptive transmit beam weights and the adaptive receive beam weight” of claim 1 and similarly amended limitations in claims 15, 26, and 29. Examiner disagrees.
Maltsev, at ¶ [0017], teaches that the beamforming antennas may be phased antenna arrays, sectorized antennas that can be switched to one of several beams, a sectorized antenna where inputs and outputs to and from several sectors can be combined with some weights. Maltsev, at ¶ [0021], further teaches transmitter station sending signals using the beamforming antennas and the receive processing of the received signals (multiple transmissions) from the transmitter station (network entity) to estimate channel state information. Beamforming involves combining transmissions/signals. For example, Maltsev discloses, at ¶ [0035], beamforming involves combining the receive beams (i.e., transmissions).
Additionally, Raghavan ‘989, at ¶¶ [0058] – [0060], teaches UE may communicate with a base station (network entity) using beamformed transmissions and that each slot may include a number of symbol periods (i.e., multiple symbols). Therefore, Raghavan ‘989 teaches receiving multiple transmissions from the network entity, where each transmission of the multiple transmissions uses one symbol of the multiple symbols. Raghavan ‘989, at ¶¶ [0073] and [0077], also teaches that beamforming involves combining signals, and receiving according to different receive beamforming weight sets (e.g., different directional listening weight sets) applied to signals. Therefore, Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989 teaches “perform an independent time processing for the multiple transmissions over the set of multiple symbols, wherein the independent time processing includes combining the multiple transmissions over the set of multiple symbols based on the set of adaptive transmit beam weights and the adaptive receive beam weight” of claim 1 and similarly amended limitations in claims 15, 26, and 29.
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 1–4, 8, 9, 13–18, and 26–30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maltsev et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2011/0018767) in view of Raghavan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2021/0409989, referred to herein as Raghavan ‘989).
Regarding claim 1, Maltsev teaches “receive multiple transmissions . . ., wherein each transmission of the multiple transmissions . . . is sent using one transmit beam of multiple transmit beams” (see Abstract, ¶¶ [0017], [0020], and [0021], and FIGS. 1 and 2; two communication devices, receiver device and transmitter device, are in communication with each other; the receiver device and the transmitter device have beamforming antennas; the transmitter device transmits (sent) signals (multiple transmissions) using the beamforming antennas (i.e., multiple transmit beams) to the receiver device. Thus, the receiver device receives multiple transmissions from the transmitter device, where the transmissions are sent using the beamforming antennas (multiple transmit beams) of the transmitter device. In other words, each transmission can be sent using one transmit beam of the multiple transmit beams);
Maltsev further teaches “determine a first linear combination of the multiple transmissions, wherein the first linear combination emulates a set of adaptive transmit beam weights used at the network entity” (see ¶¶ [0021] and [0026] – [0035]; the receiver device performs processing of the received signals (multiple transmissions) from the transmitter device to estimate channel state information (i.e., based on the multiple transmissions) from the received signals, and after the channel state information is obtained, calculates (determines) transmit antenna weight vectors (i.e., a first linear combination) which are applied (i.e., used) at the transmit station/device. Since the transmit antenna weight vectors (the first linear combination) are determined based on the received transmissions, they are/emulate a set of adaptive transmit beam weights used at the transmitting device/station. Thus, the receiver device determines a first linear combination of the multiple transmissions, wherein the first linear combination emulates an adaptive transmit beam weight for the transmitting device); and
Matlsev further teaches “determine an adaptive receive beam weight based on a second linear combination of multiple receive beams and the set of adaptive transmit beam weights” (see ¶¶ [0021], [0026] – [0035], and [0061]; beamforming is performed over several stages, where the receiver device / station calculates (determines) optimal receive weight vectors (an adaptive receive beam weight based on second linear combination) for antennas (multiple receive beams) of the receiver device. The receive antenna weight vector (the receive adaptive beam weight) is applied by the receiver device. Quality of the beam-formed transmission may become worse during the data transmission due to non-stationary environment and therefore the beam tracking procedure may be used to adjust the transmit and receive antenna weight vectors (the adaptive receive beam weight) without starting the whole initial beamforming procedure. Since the previous receive antenna weight vectors correspond to the previous transmit antenna weight vectors, the previous receive antenna weight vectors (the adaptive receive beam weight) that are adjusted are inherently adjusted according to the previous transmit antenna weight vectors (the set of adaptive transmit beam weights)).
Maltsev further teaches “perform an independent time processing for the multiple transmissions . . ., wherein the independent time processing includes combining the multiple transmissions . . . based on the set of adaptive transmit beam weights and the adaptive receive beam weight” (see ¶¶ [0017], [0021], and [0035]; beamforming antennas may be phased antenna arrays, sectorized antennas that can be switched to one of several beams, a sectorized antenna where inputs and outputs to and from several sectors can be combined with some weights (i.e., based on the set of adaptive transmit beam weights and the adaptive receive beam weight); further teaches transmitter station sending signals using the beamforming antennas and the receive processing of the received signals (multiple transmissions) from the transmitter station (network entity) to estimate channel state information; beamforming involves combining signals; since the signals are received independently, at least with respect to each other, over time, they are also being processed independently over time; Maltsev discloses beamforming involves combining the receive beams; thus, performing an independent time processing for the multiple transmissions . . ., wherein the independent time processing includes combining the multiple transmissions . . . based on the set of adaptive transmit beam weights and the adaptive receive beam weight).
Maltsev does not explicitly disclose “[a]n apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to: . . . wherein each transmission of the multiple transmissions uses one symbol of a set of multiple symbols,” “over the set of multiple symbols,” and “network entity.” However, a UE, a network entity, and each transmission of multiple transmissions from the network entity using one symbol of a set of multiple symbols are well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Raghavan ‘989 teaches “[a]n apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising: memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to” (see ¶¶ [0134], and [0139], and FIG. 8; device 805 may be an example of a UE, and may include memory, and a processor; these components may be in electronic communication (i.e., the memory and the processor are coupled to each other) via one or more buses. The memory may store computer-readable, computer-executable code including instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform various functions).
Raghavan ‘989 further teaches “wherein each transmission of the multiple transmissions uses one symbol of a set of multiple symbols,” “over the set of multiple symbols,” and “network entity” (see ¶¶ [0043], [0056], [0058] – [0060]; UE may communicate with a base station (network entity) using beamformed transmissions; communication links shown in the wireless communications system may include uplink transmissions from a UE to a base station, or downlink transmissions from a base station to a UE . Carriers may carry downlink or uplink communications (e.g., in an FDD mode) or may be configured to carry downlink and uplink communications (e.g., in a TDD mode); signal waveforms transmitted over a carrier may be made up of multiple subcarriers (e.g., using multi-carrier modulation (MCM); in a system employing MCM techniques, a resource element may consist of one symbol period; time intervals of a communications resource may be organized according to radio frames each having a specified duration; each frame may include multiple consecutively numbered subframes or slots; each slot may include a number of symbol periods (i.e., multiple symbols). Since the UE and the BS (network entity) communicate using beamformed transmissions communications between them can use symbol periods, the UE can receive multiple transmissions from the network entity, where each transmission of the multiple transmissions uses one symbol of the multiple symbols, and any calculated beam weights or combination of the multiple transmissions would also be over the set of multiple symbols).
Raghavan ‘989 also teaches independent time processing multiple transmissions “over the set of multiple symbols” and combining the multiple transmissions “over the set of multiple symbols” (see ¶¶ [0058] – [0060], [0073], and [0077]; UE may communicate with a base station (network entity) using beamformed transmissions and that each slot may include a number of symbol periods (i.e., multiple symbols). Therefore, Raghavan ‘989 teaches receiving multiple transmissions from the network entity, where each transmission of the multiple transmissions uses one symbol of the multiple symbols; furthermore, Raghavan ‘989 teaches, beamforming involves combining signals, and receiving according to different receive beamforming weight sets (e.g., different directional listening weight sets) applied to signals; since the signal are received over a set of symbols, they are also being processed independently over the set of symbols; thus, performing independent time processing for the multiple transmissions over the set of multiple symbols and combining the multiple transmissions over the set of multiple symbols).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev to incorporate the teachings of Raghavan ‘989 to have a UE and a network entity in communication with each other, and to have the UE receive multiple transmissions from the network entity, where each transmission is over one of multiple symbols and performing independent time processing for the multiple transmissions over the set of multiple symbols, wherein the independent time processing includes combining the multiple transmissions over the set of multiple symbols based on the set of adaptive transmit beam weights and the adaptive receive beam weight. The suggestion to do so would have been to adjust antenna elements based on beamforming weights to improve communications reliability or communications rate (see ¶¶ [0043] and [0073] of Raghavan ‘989).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Maltsev and Raghavan ‘989 teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and further teaches “further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor, wherein, to receive the multiple transmissions, the at least one processor is configured to receive the multiple transmissions via the transceiver, and wherein the multiple transmissions are received by the UE using the adaptive receive beam weight of the UE” (see ¶¶ [0134], [0137], and FIG. 8 of Raghavan ‘989, and ¶¶ [0021] and [0026] – [0035] of Maltsev; Raghavan ‘989 discloses device 805 includes communications manager, transceiver, memory, and a processor; the components may be in electronic communication via one or more buses; the communications manager may determine a set of beams configured for communications between the UE and a base station; and the transceiver may communicate bi-directionally, via one or more antennas (i.e., receive transmissions). Thus, the processor receives the multiple transmissions via the transceiver.
Maltsev discloses the receive antenna weight vector (the receive adaptive beam weight) is applied by the receiver device. Thus, the receiver device, when the receive antenna weight vector (the receive adaptive beam weight) is applied by the receiver device, receives the multiple transmissions using the adaptive receive beam weight).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev to incorporate the teachings of Raghavan ‘989 to have a UE receive multiple transmissions using an adaptive transmit beam weight. The suggestion to do so would have been to adjust antenna elements based on beamforming weights to improve communications reliability or communications rate (see ¶¶ [0043] and [0073] of Raghavan ‘989).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Maltsev and Raghavan ‘989 teaches the apparatus of claim 2, and further teaches “wherein the first linear combination is determined based on a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) associated with the multiple transmissions” (see ¶¶ [0036] and [0037] of Maltsev; the optimal maximum signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) beamforming method provides the transmit antenna weight vectors (the first linear combination) for the maximization of the total (calculated over the full channel bandwidth) signal-to-noise ratio of received transmissions. Thus, the first linear combination is determined based on the SNR associated with the multiple transmissions).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Maltsev and Raghavan ‘989 teaches the apparatus of claim 2, and further teaches “wherein the first linear combination corresponds to an amplitude and phase setting for weighting the multiple transmissions” (see ¶¶ [0021] of Maltsev, and ¶ [0073] of Raghavan ‘989; Maltsev discloses calculating optimal transmit antenna settings, which include the transmit weight vectors (the first linear combination). Raghavan ‘989 discloses adjustment of signals communicated via the antenna elements may include a receiving device applying (weighing) amplitude offsets (amplitude setting), phase offsets (amplitude setting), or both to signals (multiple transmissions) carried via the antenna elements associated with the device. Thus, the multiple transmissions can be weighted using the amplitude and phase setting). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev to incorporate the teachings of Raghavan ‘989 to determine the first linear combination to be based on or correspond to an amplitude and phase setting for weighting the multiple transmissions. The suggestion to do so would have been to adjust antenna elements based on beamforming weights to improve communications reliability or communications rate (see ¶¶ [0043] and [0073] of Raghavan ‘989).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Maltsev and Raghavan ‘989 teaches the apparatus of claim 2, and further teaches “adjust the adaptive receive beam weight according to the first linear combination to obtain adjusted receive beam weight” (see ¶¶ [0021], and [0061] of Maltsev; the receiver device performs processing of the received signals (multiple transmissions) from the transmitter device to estimate channel state information (i.e., based on the multiple transmissions) from the received signals, and after the channel state information is obtained, the receiver device / station calculates (determines) optimal transmit weight vectors (the first linear combination) and receive weight vectors (i.e., a second linear combination, which is a receive adaptive beam weight) for antennas (multiple receive beams) of the receiver device. Since the receive weight vectors and the transmit weight vectors are based on the obtained channel state information, they correspond to each other.
Furthermore, the quality of the beam-formed transmission may become worse during the data transmission due to non-stationary environment and therefore the beam tracking procedure may be used to adjust the transmit and receive antenna weight vectors (i.e., receive adaptive beam weight) without starting the whole initial beamforming procedure described above. Since the previous receive antenna weight vectors correspond to the previous transmit antenna weight vectors (the first linear combination), the previous receive antenna weight vectors (the adaptive receive beam weight) that are adjusted are inherently adjusted according to the previous transmit antenna weight vectors (the first linear combination)).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Maltsev and Raghavan ‘989 teaches the apparatus of claim 2, and further teaches “wherein the multiple receive beams are directionally steerable, and the adjusted adaptive receive beam weight approximates a dominant left-singular vector of a channel between the network entity and the UE with a linear combination of the multiple receive beams” (see ¶¶ [0012], [0026] – [0052] of Maltsev; Maltsev discloses the types of antenna systems of transmit and receiver devices include beam steerable antennas (i.e., the multiple receive beams of the receiver device can be directionally steerable); the transmit and receive antenna elements can be considered to be connected through the frequency selective channel transfer matrix C(ω) (i.e., a channel between the network entity and the UE); the matrices F and G are composed of the vectors f1 . . . fNtransmit and g1 . . . gNreceive respectively where these vectors may be considered as elementary beams (or antenna patterns) which may be combined (i.e., a linear combination) to create final transmit and receive antenna patterns; using the given mathematical model the received signal yf(k) for the k-th subcarrier of the orthogonal frequency division multiplexed (OFDM) system exploiting the frequency domain processing can be written as a multiplication of the signal sf(k) transmitted at the k-th subcarrier, transmit antenna weight vector wtransmit, frequency domain channel transfer matrix at the k-th subcarrier Hf(k) and the receive antenna weight vector wreceive (i.e., adaptive receive beam weight) (equation shown in paragraph [0029]); the optimal maximum signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) beamforming method provides the transmit and receive antenna weight vectors for the maximization of the total (calculated over the full channel bandwidth) signal-to-noise ratio; the optimal transmit and receive antenna weight vectors wtx and wrx may be defined as SVD decomposition vectors v1 and u1 (i.e., a dominant left-singular vector) corresponding to the maximum singular value σ1. Therefore, the optimal receive antenna weight vector wrx (i.e., the adaptive receive beam weight) can be/approximate a dominant left-singular vector. Thus, the optimal receive antenna weight vector wrx (the adaptive receive beam weight) is based on a linear combination of the multiple receive beams, and the optimal receive antenna weight vector wrx can be/approximates a dominant left-singular vector of the channel between the transmitter device and the receiver device. Since the receive antenna weight vector can approximate a dominant left-singular vector, it follows that the adjusted antenna weight vector (i.e., the adjusted adaptive transmit beam weight) is based on a linear combination of the multiple receive beams and can also approximate a dominant left-singular vector).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Maltsev and Raghavan ‘989 teaches the apparatus of claim 2, and further teaches “wherein the multiple receive beams and the multiple transmit beams are selected based on a beam training process” (see ¶¶ [0004] and [0021] of Maltsev; Beamforming generally involves a training phase (i.e., beam training process) in which the receiver learns information about how signals will ultimately be transmitted between the receiver and the transmitter. That information can be provided to the transmitter to appropriately form (i.e., select) the beams. The beamforming can be done during one or several stages where the receive station feeds back the control messages to the transmit station between stages on the parameters of the further training needed (i.e., the transmit beams and the receive beams between the transmit station and the receive station are based on beam training process). After all the needed channel state information is obtained, the receive station calculates optimal transmit and receive antenna settings (i.e., best transmit/receive sectors for beam-switched sectorized antennas and optimal transmit and receive weight vectors for phased array antennas or antennas with sectors combining). Thus, the multiple receive beams and transmit beams are selected based on a beam training process).
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Maltsev and Raghavan ‘989 teaches the apparatus of claim 2, and further teaches “receive, from the network entity, a configuration of a first number of the multiple receive beams and a second number of the multiple transmit beams based on a channel condition of a channel between the network entity and the UE, or determine, at the UE, the first number of the multiple receive beams and the second number of the multiple transmit beams at the UE based on the channel condition of the channel between the network entity and the UE” (see ¶ [0021] of Maltsev, and ¶ [; Maltsev teaches beamforming can be done during one or several stages where the receive station (i.e., the UE) feeds back the control messages to the transmit station (i.e., the network entity) between stages on the parameters of the further training needed. After all the needed channel state information (i.e., the channel condition of the channel between the network entity and the UE) is obtained, the receive station (i.e., the UE) calculates optimal transmit and receive antenna settings (i.e., best transmit/receive sectors for beam-switched sectorized antennas and optimal transmit and receive weight vectors for phased array antennas or antennas with sectors combining). Since the described optimal transmit antenna settings and the receive antenna settings determine multiple transmit beams and multiple receive beams used for communication, the receive station is calculating the first number of the multiple receive beams and the second number of the multiple transmit beams based on the channel condition of the channel between transmit station and the receive station. Raghavan ‘989 teaches a UE may communicate with a base station (network entity) using beamformed transmissions).
Regarding claim 15, Maltsev teaches “transmit multiple transmissions . . ., wherein each transmission of the multiple transmissions is sent using one transmit beam of multiple transmit beams, the multiple transmissions cause . . . determine a first linear combination of the multiple transmissions, and wherein the first linear combination emulates an adaptive transmit beam weight” (see Abstract, ¶¶ [0017], [0020], [0021], and [0026] – [0035], and FIGS. 1 and 2; two communication devices, receiver device and transmitter device, are in communication with each other; the receiver device and the transmitter device have beamforming antennas; the transmitter device transmits (sent) signals (multiple transmissions) using the beamforming antennas (i.e., multiple transmit beams) to the receiver device. Thus, the transmitter device transmits multiple transmissions to the reciver device, where the transmissions are sent using the beamforming antennas (multiple transmit beams) of the transmitter device. In other words, each transmission can be sent using one transmit beam of the multiple transmit beams; the receiver device performs processing of the received signals (multiple transmissions) from the transmitter device to estimate channel state information (i.e., based on the multiple transmissions) from the received signals, and after the channel state information is obtained, calculates (determines) transmit antenna weight vector (i.e., a first linear combination). Since the transmit antenna weight vector (the first linear combination) are determined based on the received signals, they are/emulate a set of adaptive transmit beam weight used at the transmitting device and the determination of the transmit weight vectors (the first linear combination) is based on the estimated CSI, it caused by the received signals (multiple transmissions). Thus, the multiple transmissions cause the receiver device to determine a first linear combination, wherein the first linear combination emulates an adaptive transmit beam weight for the transmitting device);
Maltsev further teaches “communicate . . . perform an independent time processing for the multiple transmissions . . ., wherein the independent time processing includes combining the multiple transmissions . . . based on the set of adaptive transmit beam weights and the adaptive receive beam weight, wherein the adaptive receive beam weight based on a second linear combination of multiple receive beams and the set of adaptive transmit beam weights” (see ¶¶ [0017], [0021], [0026] – [0035], and [0061]; the transmit antenna weight vector (the first linear combination) is applied at the transmit station/transmitter device. Therefore, the transmissions from the transmit device to the receiver device are based on the transmit antenna weight vector. beamforming antennas may be phased antenna arrays, sectorized antennas that can be switched to one of several beams, a sectorized antenna where inputs and outputs to and from several sectors can be combined with some weights (i.e., based on the set of adaptive transmit beam weights and the adaptive receive beam weight); further teaches transmitter station sending signals using the beamforming antennas and the receive processing of the received signals (multiple transmissions) from the transmitter station (network entity) to estimate channel state information; beamforming involves combining signals; since the signals are received independently, at least with respect to each other, over time, they are also being processed independently over time; Maltsev discloses beamforming involves combining the receive beams; Furthermore, beamforming is performed over several stages, where the receiver device / station calculates (determines) optimal receive weight vectors (an adaptive receive beam weight based on second linear combination) for antennas (multiple receive beams) of the receiver device. The receive antenna weight vector (the receive adaptive beam weight) is applied by the receiver device. Quality of the beam-formed transmission may become worse during the data transmission due to non-stationary environment and therefore the beam tracking procedure may be used to adjust the transmit and receive antenna weight vectors (the adaptive receive beam weight) without starting the whole initial beamforming procedure. Since the previous receive antenna weight vectors correspond to the previous transmit antenna weight vectors, the previous receive antenna weight vectors (the adaptive receive beam weight) that are adjusted are inherently adjusted according to the previous transmit antenna weight vectors (the set of adaptive transmit beam weights)).
Maltsev does not explicitly disclose “[a]n apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to: . . . wherein each transmission of the multiple transmissions uses one symbol of a set of multiple symbols,” “over the set of multiple symbols,” and “user equipment (UE).” However, a UE, a network entity, and each transmission of multiple transmissions from the network entity using one symbol of a set of multiple symbols are well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Raghavan ‘989 teaches “[a]n apparatus for wireless communication at a network entity, comprising: memory; and at least one processor coupled to the memory and, based at least in part on information stored in the memory, the at least one processor is configured to” (see ¶¶ [0172] and [0177], and FIG. 12; device 1205 may be an example of a base station; and may include memory, and a processor; these components may be in electronic communication (i.e., the memory and the processor are coupled to each other) via one or more buses. The memory may store computer-readable, computer-executable code including instructions that, when executed, cause the processor to perform various functions).
Raghavan ‘989 further teaches “wherein each transmission of the multiple transmissions uses one symbol of a set of multiple symbols” and “user equipment (UE)” (see ¶¶ [0043], [0056], [0058] – [0060]; UE may communicate with a base station (network entity) using beamformed transmissions; communication links shown in the wireless communications system may include uplink transmissions from a UE to a base station, or downlink transmissions from a base station to a UE . Carriers may carry downlink or uplink communications (e.g., in an FDD mode) or may be configured to carry downlink and uplink communications (e.g., in a TDD mode); signal waveforms transmitted over a carrier may be made up of multiple subcarriers (e.g., using multi-carrier modulation (MCM); in a system employing MCM techniques, a resource element may consist of one symbol period; time intervals of a communications resource may be organized according to radio frames each having a specified duration; each frame may include multiple consecutively numbered subframes or slots; each slot may include a number of symbol periods (i.e., multiple symbols). Since the UE and the BS (network entity) communicate using beamformed transmissions communications between them can use symbol periods, the UE can receive multiple transmissions from the network entity, where each transmission of the multiple transmissions uses one symbol of the multiple symbols, and any calculated beam weights or combination of the multiple transmissions would also be over the set of multiple symbols).
Raghavan ‘989 also teaches independent time processing multiple transmissions “over the set of multiple symbols” and combining the multiple transmissions “over the set of multiple symbols” (see ¶¶ [0058] – [0060], [0073], and [0077]; UE may communicate with a base station (network entity) using beamformed transmissions and that each slot may include a number of symbol periods (i.e., multiple symbols). Therefore, Raghavan ‘989 teaches receiving multiple transmissions from the network entity, where each transmission of the multiple transmissions uses one symbol of the multiple symbols; furthermore, Raghavan ‘989 teaches, beamforming involves combining signals, and receiving according to different receive beamforming weight sets (e.g., different directional listening weight sets) applied to signals; since the signal are received over a set of symbols, they are also being processed independently over the set of symbols; thus, performing independent time processing for the multiple transmissions over the set of multiple symbols and combining the multiple transmissions over the set of multiple symbols).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev to incorporate the teachings of Raghavan ‘989 to have a UE and a network entity in communication with each other based on independent time processing multiple transmissions over the set of multiple symbols and combining the multiple transmissions over the set of multiple symbols, and to have the network entity transmit multiple transmissions to the UE, where each transmission is over one of multiple symbols. The suggestion to do so would have been to adjust antenna elements based on beamforming weights to improve communications reliability or communications rate (see ¶¶ [0043] and [0073] of Raghavan ‘989).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Maltsev and Raghavan ‘989 teaches the apparatus of claim 15, and further teaches “further comprising a transceiver coupled to the at least one processor, wherein, to transmit the multiple transmissions, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the multiple transmissions via the transceiver, and wherein the multiple transmissions are received by the UE using an adaptive receive beam weight” (see ¶¶ [0172], [0173], and [0177], and FIG. 12 of Raghavan ‘989, and ¶¶ [0021] and [0026] – [0035] of Maltsev; Raghavan ‘989 discloses device 805 includes communications manager, transceiver, memory, and a processor; the components may be in electronic communication via one or more buses; the communications manager may determine a set of beams configured for communications between the UE and a base station; and the transceiver may communicate bi-directionally, via one or more antennas (i.e., transmit transmissions). Thus, the processor transmit the multiple transmissions via the transceiver.
Maltsev discloses the receive antenna weight vector (the receive adaptive beam weight) is applied by the receiver device. Thus, the receiver device, when the receive antenna weight vector (the receive adaptive beam weight) is applied by the receiver device, receives the multiple transmissions using the adaptive receive beam weight).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev to incorporate the teachings of Raghavan ‘989 to have a UE receive multiple transmissions using an adaptive transmit beam weight. The suggestion to do so would have been to adjust antenna elements based on beamforming weights to improve communications reliability or communications rate (see ¶¶ [0043] and [0073] of Raghavan ‘989).
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Maltsev and Raghavan ‘989 teaches the apparatus of claim 16, and further teaches “wherein the first linear combination is determined based on a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) associated with the multiple transmissions” (see ¶¶ [0036] and [0037] of Maltsev; the optimal maximum signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) beamforming method provides the transmit antenna weight vectors (the first linear combination) for the maximization of the total (calculated over the full channel bandwidth) signal-to-noise ratio of received transmissions. Thus, the first linear combination is determined based on the SNR associated with the multiple transmissions).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Maltsev and Raghavan ‘989 teaches the apparatus of claim 17, and further teaches “wherein the first linear combination corresponds to an amplitude and phase setting for weighting the multiple transmissions” (see ¶¶ [0021] of Maltsev, and ¶ [0073] of Raghavan ‘989; Maltsev discloses calculating optimal transmit antenna settings, which include the transmit weight vectors (the first linear combination). Raghavan ‘989 discloses adjustment of signals communicated via the antenna elements may include a receiving device applying (weighing) amplitude offsets (amplitude setting), phase offsets (amplitude setting), or both to signals (multiple transmissions) carried via the antenna elements associated with the device. Thus, the multiple transmissions can be weighted using the amplitude and phase setting). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev to incorporate the teachings of Raghavan ‘989 to determine the first linear combination to be based on or correspond to an amplitude and phase setting for weighting the multiple transmissions. The suggestion to do so would have been to adjust antenna elements based on beamforming weights to improve communications reliability or communications rate (see ¶¶ [0043] and [0073] of Raghavan ‘989).
Regarding claims 26–28, they are the method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 1–3 that have been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claims 1–3. Claims 26–28 are rejected under the same rational as claims 1–3.
Regarding claims 29 and 30, they are the method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 15 and 16 that have been rejected above. Applicant’s attention is directed to the rejection of claims 15 and 16. Claims 29 and 30 are rejected under the same rational as claims 15 and 16.
Claims 5, 7, 19, 21, 24, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989 and further in view of Zhou et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2020/0186205).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Maltsev and Raghavan ‘989 teaches the apparatus of claim 2, and further teaches “wherein the multiple transmit beams are directionally steerable, and the set of adaptive transmit beam weight approximates a dominant right-singular vector of a channel between the network entity and the UE with a linear combination of the multiple transmit beams” (see ¶¶ [0012], [0026] – [0052] of Maltsev, and ¶ [0043] of Raghavan ‘989; Maltsev discloses the types of antenna systems of transmit and receiver devices include beam steerable antennas (i.e., the multiple transmit beams of the transmit device can be directionally steerable); the transmit and receive antenna elements can be considered to be connected through the frequency selective channel transfer matrix C(ω) (i.e., a channel between the network entity and the UE); the matrices F and G are composed of the vectors f1 . . . fNtransmit and g1 . . . gNreceive respectively where these vectors may be considered as elementary beams (or antenna patterns) (i.e., these can include the multiple transmit beams) which may be combined (i.e., a linear combination) to create final transmit and receive antenna patterns; using the given mathematical model the received signal yf(k) for the k-th subcarrier of the orthogonal frequency division multiplexed (OFDM) system exploiting the frequency domain processing can be written as a multiplication of the signal sf(k) transmitted at the k-th subcarrier, transmit antenna weight vector wtransmit (i.e., adaptive transmit beam weight); the optimal maximum signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) beamforming method provides the transmit and receive antenna weight vectors for the maximization of the total (calculated over the full channel bandwidth) signal-to-noise ratio; the optimal transmit and receive antenna weight vectors wtx and wrx may be defined as SVD decomposition vectors v1 (i.e., a dominant right-singular vector) and u1 corresponding to the maximum singular value σ1; therefore, the optimal transmit antenna weight vector wtx (i.e., the adaptive transmit beam weight) can be/approximate a dominant right-singular vector; thus, the optimal transmit antenna weight vector wtx (the adaptive transmit beam weight) is based on a linear combination of the multiple transmit beams, and the optimal transmit antenna weight vector wtx (the adaptive transmit beam weight) can be/approximates a dominant right-singular vector of the channel between the transmitter device and the receiver device. Raghavan ‘989 discloses UE may communicate with a base station (network entity) using beamformed transmissions; the UE and the base station (network entity) may wirelessly communicate with one another via one or more communication links over one or more carriers; a carrier used for a communication link may include a portion of a radio frequency spectrum band (e.g., a bandwidth part (BWP)) that is operated according to one or more physical layer channels, and a carrier may be associated with a frequency channel). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev to incorporate the teachings of Raghavan ‘989 to have multiple transmit beams that are directionally steerable, and where the adaptive transmit beam weight approximates a dominant right-singular vector of a channel between the network entity and the UE, and where it is based on a linear combination of the transmit beams. The suggestion to do so would have been to adjust antenna elements based on beamforming weights to improve communications reliability or communications rate (see ¶¶ [0043] and [0073] of Raghavan ‘989).
The combination of Maltsev and Raghavan ‘989 does not appear to explicitly disclose that the multiple transmit beams “with gains above a transmit gain threshold, wherein the transmit gain threshold determines an approximation error” of claim 5. However, the foregoing limitations of claim 5 are well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Zhou teaches “with gains above a transmit gain threshold, wherein the transmit gain threshold determines an approximation error” (see ¶¶ [0044], [0045], [0049], [0056]; the electronic device 200 may be implemented as a base station and/or a terminal device; the electronic device 200 may include a beam pair determination unit 202 and a beam gain gradient calculation unit 204; the beam pair determination unit 202 can be configured to determine K beam pairs in a communication link between a first communication apparatus and a second communication apparatus for a wireless communication system; the first communication apparatus may be a base station, and the second communication apparatus may be a terminal device; each beam pair may include a transmitting beam and a receiving beam, and has corresponding gain level; the beam gain performance of the portion of beam pairs may be required to meet a predetermined condition (for example, the gain level needs to be higher than a predetermined threshold) (i.e., a gain threshold for transmit beam / a transmit gain threshold). Therefore, the determined beams have transmit beams with gains above a transmit gain threshold. Furthermore, since the transmit beams are above the threshold, the predetermined threshold (transmit gain threshold) is an error threshold, where beams that are not above the threshold can cause errors in calculations based on the beams. Thus, the threshold (transmit gain threshold) determines an approximation error). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989 to incorporate the teachings of Zhou to have transmit beams with gains above a gain threshold, where the gain threshold can determine an approximation error for the dominant right-singular vector determined based on a combination of the transmit beams. The suggestion to do so would have been to have optimal signal-to-noise ratio that satisfies the beamforming transmission quality of the transmitting end obtained at the receiving end (see ¶ [0049] of Zhou).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Maltsev, Raghavan ‘989, and Zhou teaches the apparatus of claim 5, and further teaches “receive the transmit gain threshold in a configuration from the network entity, or determine the transmit gain threshold at the UE” (see ¶¶ [0044], [0056], and [0057] of Zhou; the electronic device 200 may be implemented as a base station and/or a terminal device (i.e., the UE); the electronic device 200 (the UE) may include a beam pair determination unit 202 and a beam gain gradient calculation unit 204; the beam gain performance of the portion of beam pairs may be required to meet a predetermined condition (for example, the gain level needs to be higher than a predetermined threshold) (i.e., the transmit gain threshold); the beam pair determination unit 202 (i.e., at the UE) may determine all of beam pairs or a predetermined number of beam pairs for communication, or may determine those beam pairs that satisfy a predetermined condition (i.e., the predetermined threshold, which as described above is the transmit gain threshold) for communication. Thus, the beam pair determining unit 202 of the terminal device (i.e., at the UE) determines the transmit gain threshold). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989 to incorporate the teachings of Zhou to have the UE determine the transmit gain threshold. The suggestion to do so would have been to have optimal signal-to-noise ratio that satisfies the beamforming transmission quality of the transmitting end obtained at the receiving end (see ¶ [0049] of Zhou).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Maltsev and Raghavan ‘989 teaches the apparatus of claim 16, and further teaches “wherein the multiple transmit beams are directionally steerable, and the set of adaptive transmit beam weight approximates a dominant right-singular vector of a channel between the network entity and the UE with a linear combination of the multiple transmit beams” (see ¶¶ [0012], [0026] – [0052] of Maltsev, and ¶ [0043] of Raghavan ‘989; Maltsev discloses the types of antenna systems of transmit and receiver devices include beam steerable antennas (i.e., the multiple transmit beams of the transmit device can be directionally steerable); the transmit and receive antenna elements can be considered to be connected through the frequency selective channel transfer matrix C(ω) (i.e., a channel between the network entity and the UE); the matrices F and G are composed of the vectors f1 . . . fNtransmit and g1 . . . gNreceive respectively where these vectors may be considered as elementary beams (or antenna patterns) (i.e., these can include the multiple transmit beams) which may be combined (i.e., a linear combination) to create final transmit and receive antenna patterns; using the given mathematical model the received signal yf(k) for the k-th subcarrier of the orthogonal frequency division multiplexed (OFDM) system exploiting the frequency domain processing can be written as a multiplication of the signal sf(k) transmitted at the k-th subcarrier, transmit antenna weight vector wtransmit (i.e., adaptive transmit beam weight); the optimal maximum signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) beamforming method provides the transmit and receive antenna weight vectors for the maximization of the total (calculated over the full channel bandwidth) signal-to-noise ratio; the optimal transmit and receive antenna weight vectors wtx and wrx may be defined as SVD decomposition vectors v1 (i.e., a dominant right-singular vector) and u1 corresponding to the maximum singular value σ1; therefore, the optimal transmit antenna weight vector wtx (i.e., the adaptive transmit beam weight) can be/approximate a dominant right-singular vector; thus, the optimal transmit antenna weight vector wtx (the adaptive transmit beam weight) is based on a linear combination of the multiple transmit beams, and the optimal transmit antenna weight vector wtx (the adaptive transmit beam weight) can be/approximates a dominant right-singular vector of the channel between the transmitter device and the receiver device. Raghavan ‘989 discloses UE may communicate with a base station (network entity) using beamformed transmissions; the UE and the base station (network entity) may wirelessly communicate with one another via one or more communication links over one or more carriers; a carrier used for a communication link may include a portion of a radio frequency spectrum band (e.g., a bandwidth part (BWP)) that is operated according to one or more physical layer channels, and a carrier may be associated with a frequency channel). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev to incorporate the teachings of Raghavan ‘989 to have multiple transmit beams that are directionally steerable, and where the adaptive transmit beam weight approximates a dominant right-singular vector of a channel between the network entity and the UE, and where it is based on a linear combination of the transmit beams. The suggestion to do so would have been to adjust antenna elements based on beamforming weights to improve communications reliability or communications rate (see ¶¶ [0043] and [0073] of Raghavan ‘989).
The combination of Maltsev and Raghavan ‘989 does not appear to explicitly disclose that the multiple transmit beams “with gains above a transmit gain threshold, wherein the transmit gain threshold determines an approximation error” of claim 19. However, the foregoing limitations of claim 19 are well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Zhou teaches “with gains above a transmit gain threshold, wherein the transmit gain threshold determines an approximation error” (see ¶¶ [0044], [0045], [0049], [0056]; the electronic device 200 may be implemented as a base station and/or a terminal device; the electronic device 200 may include a beam pair determination unit 202 and a beam gain gradient calculation unit 204; the beam pair determination unit 202 can be configured to determine K beam pairs in a communication link between a first communication apparatus and a second communication apparatus for a wireless communication system; the first communication apparatus may be a base station, and the second communication apparatus may be a terminal device; each beam pair may include a transmitting beam and a receiving beam, and has corresponding gain level; the beam gain performance of the portion of beam pairs may be required to meet a predetermined condition (for example, the gain level needs to be higher than a predetermined threshold) (i.e., a gain threshold for transmit beam / a transmit gain threshold). Therefore, the determined beams have transmit beams with gains above a transmit gain threshold. Furthermore, since the transmit beams are above the threshold, the predetermined threshold (transmit gain threshold) is an error threshold, where beams that are not above the threshold can cause errors in calculations based on the beams. Thus, the threshold (transmit gain threshold) determines an approximation error). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989 to incorporate the teachings of Zhou to have transmit beams with gains above a gain threshold, where the gain threshold can determine an approximation error for the dominant right-singular vector determined based on a combination of the transmit beams. The suggestion to do so would have been to have optimal signal-to-noise ratio that satisfies the beamforming transmission quality of the transmitting end obtained at the receiving end (see ¶ [0049] of Zhou).
Regarding claim 21, the combination of Maltsev, Raghavan ‘989, Zhou teaches the apparatus of claim 19, and further teaches “configure the transmit gain threshold for the UE” (see ¶ [0056] of Zhou; the beam gain performance of the portion of beam pairs may be required to meet a predetermined condition (i.e., the transmit gain threshold). Since the condition (i.e., the transmit gain threshold) is predetermined for the UE, it can be configured by the electronic device implemented as a base station). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989 to incorporate the teachings of Zhou to have the transmit gain threshold configured for the UE. The suggestion to do so would have been to have optimal signal-to-noise ratio that satisfies the beamforming transmission quality of the transmitting end obtained at the receiving end (see ¶ [0049] of Zhou).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Maltsev and Raghavan ‘989 teaches the apparatus of claim 16, but does not explicitly disclose “wherein the multiple receive beams and the multiple transmit beams are selected based on a beam training process” of claim 24. However, selecting transmit and receive beams based on a beam training process is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Zhou teaches “wherein the multiple receive beams and the multiple transmit beams are selected based on a beam training process” (see ¶¶ [0042], [0044], and [0045]; the electronic device 200 may be implemented as a base station; the electronic device 200 may include a beam pair determination unit, which can determine K beam pairs in a communication link between a first communication apparatus and a second communication apparatus; each beam pair may include a transmitting beam and a receiving beam; the process of determining a matching transmitting and receiving beam pair of a base station and a terminal device through beam sweeping described above is sometimes referred to as a beam training process). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989 to incorporate the teachings of Zhou to have the multiple receive beams and the multiple transmit beams selected based on a beam training process. The suggestion to do so would have been to have optimal signal-to-noise ratio that satisfies the beamforming transmission quality of the transmitting end obtained at the receiving end (see ¶ [0049] of Zhou).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Maltsev, Raghavan ‘989, and Zhou teaches the apparatus of claim 24, and further teaches “configure a first number of the multiple receive beams and a second number of the multiple transmit beams at the UE based on a channel condition of a channel between the network entity and the UE” (see ¶¶ [0044], [0045], [0055], and [0058], and FIG. 1A of Zhou; the electronic device 200 may be implemented as a base station; the electronic device 200 may include a beam pair determination unit, which can determine K beam pairs in a communication link between a first communication apparatus (e.g., a base station / network entity) and a second communication apparatus (e.g., a terminal device / UE); each beam pair may include a transmitting beam and a receiving beam; the beam pair determination unit obtains a beam pain gain by measuring signal received power (e.g., RSRP, etc.) or a communication block error rate (BLER), and a signal-to-noise ratio and the like (i.e., channel condition); the beam pair determination unit determines those beam pairs that satisfy a predetermined condition are to be used for communication. The predetermined condition can be a gain condition. Therefore, the beams for communication are determined based on the gain of the beams, where the gain the beams are determined based on a channel condition in a communication link between the communication apparatuses). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989 to incorporate the teachings of Zhou to have the network entity configure a number of multiple transmit and receive beams at UE based on a channel condition between the network entity and the UE. The suggestion to do so would have been to have optimal signal-to-noise ratio that satisfies the beamforming transmission quality of the transmitting end obtained at the receiving end (see ¶ [0049] of Zhou).
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989, further in view of Zhou, and further in view of Raghavan et al. (U.S. Publication No. 2016/0198474, referred to herein as Raghavan ‘474).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Maltsev, Raghavan ‘989, and Zhou teaches the apparatus of claim 5, and further teaches “wherein the multiple transmit beams are selected by the network entity” (see ¶¶ [0044], [0045], [0049], [0056] of Zhou; the electronic device 200 may be implemented as a base station (i.e., the network entity); the electronic device 200 may include a beam pair determination unit 202; the beam pair determination unit 202 can be configured to determine K beam pairs in a communication link between a first communication apparatus and a second communication apparatus for a wireless communication system; each beam pair may include a transmitting beam and a receiving beam, and has corresponding gain level. Thus, Zhou teaches a network entity selecting multiple transmit beams). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989 to incorporate the teachings of Zhou to have the network entity select the multiple transmit beams. The suggestion to do so would have been to have beams that satisfy transmission quality of the transmissions obtained at the receiving end (see ¶ [0049] of Zhou).
While the combination of Maltsev, Raghavan ‘989, and Zhou teaches selection of the multiple transmit beams by the network entity, it does not explicitly disclose “a network-side beamforming codebook” of claim 6. However, a network-side beamforming codebook is well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Raghavan ‘474 teaches “a network-side beamforming codebook” (see ¶¶ [0073] and [0074]; Raghavan ‘474 teaches signal may be transmitted by the base station (network entity) utilizing a default beam codebook (i.e., a network-side beamforming codebook). Furthermore, Raghavan ‘474 teaches if the UE determines that the received signal is below a SNR threshold, the UE may select an alternate beam codebook (e.g., intermediate codebook or fine codebook with a smaller 3-dB beamwidth for each beam) for directional beamforming that may offer higher power gains. The selection of the alternate beam codebook (i.e., intermediate codebook or fine codebook) may be signaled to the base station over the UL channel. In some examples, the uplink transmission may direct the base station (network entity) to adjust the beam codebooks at the base station (network entity) for subsequent transmissions. Thus, the base station (network entity) selects beams utilizing/from a beam codebook at the network entity for transmissions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989 and further in view of Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Raghavan ‘474 to have the network entity select the multiple transmit beams from a network-side beamforming codebook. The suggestion to do so would have been to have satisfactory link margins between the UE and the base station (see ¶ [0073 of Raghavan ‘474).
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Maltsev, Raghavan ‘989, and Zhou teaches the apparatus of claim 19, and further teaches “wherein the multiple transmit beams are selected by the network entity” (see ¶¶ [0044], [0045], [0049], [0056] of Zhou; the electronic device 200 may be implemented as a base station (i.e., the network entity); the electronic device 200 may include a beam pair determination unit 202; the beam pair determination unit 202 can be configured to determine K beam pairs in a communication link between a first communication apparatus and a second communication apparatus for a wireless communication system; each beam pair may include a transmitting beam and a receiving beam, and has corresponding gain level. Thus, Zhou teaches a network entity selecting multiple transmit beams). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989 to incorporate the teachings of Zhou to have the network entity select the multiple transmit beams. The suggestion to do so would have been to have beams that satisfy transmission quality of the transmissions obtained at the receiving end (see ¶ [0049] of Zhou).
While the combination of Maltsev, Raghavan ‘989, and Zhou teaches selection of the multiple transmit beams by the network entity, it does not explicitly disclose “a network-side beamforming codebook” of claim 20. However, a network-side beamforming codebook is well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Raghavan ‘474 teaches “a network-side beamforming codebook” (see ¶¶ [0073] and [0074]; Raghavan ‘474 teaches signal may be transmitted by the base station (network entity) utilizing a default beam codebook (i.e., a network-side beamforming codebook). Furthermore, Raghavan ‘474 teaches if the UE determines that the received signal is below a SNR threshold, the UE may select an alternate beam codebook (e.g., intermediate codebook or fine codebook with a smaller 3-dB beamwidth for each beam) for directional beamforming that may offer higher power gains. The selection of the alternate beam codebook (i.e., intermediate codebook or fine codebook) may be signaled to the base station over the UL channel. In some examples, the uplink transmission may direct the base station (network entity) to adjust the beam codebooks at the base station (network entity) for subsequent transmissions. Thus, the base station (network entity) selects beams utilizing/from a beam codebook at the network entity for transmissions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989 and further in view of Zhou to incorporate the teachings of Raghavan ‘474 to have the network entity select the multiple transmit beams from a network-side beamforming codebook. The suggestion to do so would have been to have satisfactory link margins between the UE and the base station (see ¶ [0073 of Raghavan ‘474).
Claims 10–12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989, and further in view of Raghavan ‘474.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Maltsev and Raghavan ‘989 teaches the apparatus of claim 9, and further teaches “wherein the multiple receive beams are selected by the UE” (see ¶ [0021] of Maltsev, and ¶¶ [0043], [0134], and [0137] of Raghavan ‘989; Maltsev discloses receive station calculates optimal transmit and receive antenna settings (i.e. best transmit/receive sectors for beam-switched sectorized antennas and optimal transmit and receive weight vectors for phased array antennas or antennas with sectors combining). In other words, the receive station of Maltsev selects multiple receive beams based on the receive antenna settings (e.g., receive weight vectors). Raghavan ‘989 teaches UE in communication with a base station using beamformed transmissions). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev to incorporate the teachings of Raghavan ‘989 to have a UE select the multiple receive beams. The suggestion to do so would have been to improve communications reliability or communications rate (see ¶¶ [0043] and [0073] of Raghavan ‘989).
While the combination of Maltsev and Raghavan ‘989 teaches selection of the multiple receive beams by the UE, it does not explicitly disclose “a UE-side beamforming codebook” of claim 10. However, a UE-side beamforming codebook is well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example, Raghavan ‘474 teaches “a UE-side beamforming codebook” (see ¶ [0074]; Raghavan ‘474 teaches the UE may select an alternate beam codebook for directional beamforming (i.e. UE-side beamforming codebook) that may offer higher power gains. Therefore, Raghavan ‘474 teaches UE selecting receive beams based on the alternate codebook the UE selects). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989 to incorporate the teachings of Raghavan ‘474 to have the UE select the multiple receive beams from the UE-side beamforming codebook. The suggestion to do so would have been to have satisfactory link margins between the UE and the base station (see ¶ [0073 of Raghavan ‘474).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Maltsev and Raghavan ‘989 teaches the apparatus of claim 1, and in particular, teaches determining transmit weight vectors (the first linear combination) during a beamforming procedure that maximizes the signal-to-noise (SNR) ratio (see ¶¶ [0020], [0021], and [0037] of Maltsev). The requirement to maximize the SNR ratio can be considered a prerequisite condition. However, the combination does not explicitly disclose “prior to being configured to determine the first linear combination, evaluate a prerequisite condition, and wherein, to determine the first linear combination, the at least one processor is configured to: determine the first linear combination in response to the prerequisite condition being met” of claim 11. But evaluating a prerequisite condition and performing an action, such as a beamforming procedure, in response to the prerequisite condition being met is well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
For example, Raghavan ‘474 teaches “prior to being configured to determine the first linear combination, evaluate a prerequisite condition, and wherein, to determine the first linear combination, the at least one processor is configured to: determine the first linear combination in response to the prerequisite condition being met” (see ¶¶ [0073] and [0074] of Raghavan ‘474; UE may receive a signal from the base station, and upon receiving a signal from the base station, may estimate the SNR of the received signal and determine whether the received signal satisfies signal quality thresholds; if the UE determines (evaluate) that the received signal is below a SNR threshold (i.e., prerequisite condition being met), the UE may select an alternate beam codebook for directional beamforming that may offer higher power gains. By selecting a different codebook than the current codebook, the UE is initiating a beamforming procedure. Thus, in response to the prerequisite condition of below SNR threshold being met, a beamforming procedure is initiated by the UE). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989 to incorporate the teachings of Raghavan ‘474 to have a UE that evaluates a prerequisite condition prior to determining the first linear combination, which is part of a beamforming procedure. The suggestion to do so would have been to have a UE may dynamically select an optimal beam codebook in order to improve link margins with the base station (see ¶ [0073 of Raghavan ‘474).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Maltsev, Raghavan ‘989, and Raghavan ‘474 teaches the apparatus of claim 11, and further teaches “wherein the prerequisite condition is based on one or more of: a number of dominant clusters in a channel between the network entity and the UE, an angular spread associated with each of the dominant clusters, a transmitting antenna array dimension at the network entity, a receiving antenna array dimension at the UE, a mobility condition between the network entity and the UE, and a rate requirement between the network entity and the UE” (see ¶¶ [0073] and [0074] of Raghavan ‘474; UE may estimate the SNR of the received signal and determine whether the received signal satisfies signal quality thresholds (i.e., a rate requirement between the network entity and the UE); if the UE the determines that the received signal is below a SNR threshold (i.e., a prerequisite condition based on a rate requirement between the network entity and the UE)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989 to incorporate the teachings of Raghavan ‘474 to have the prerequisite condition based on a rate requirement between the network entity and the UE. The suggestion to do so would have been to have a UE may dynamically select an optimal beam codebook in order to improve link margins with the base station (see ¶ [0073 of Raghavan ‘474).
.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989, and further in view of Sayeed et al. (U.S. Patent Publication No. 2012/0076498).
Regarding claim 22, the combination of Maltsev and Raghavan ‘989 teach the apparatus of claim 15, but does not explicitly disclose “prior to being configured to transmit the multiple transmissions, evaluate a prerequisite condition, and wherein, to transmit the multiple transmissions, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the multiple transmissions in response to the prerequisite condition being met” of claim 22. However, evaluating a prerequisite condition and transmitting transmissions based on the prerequisite condition being met is well known in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention. For example Sayeed discloses “prior to being configured to transmit the multiple transmissions, evaluate a prerequisite condition, and wherein, to transmit the multiple transmissions, the at least one processor is configured to transmit the multiple transmissions in response to the prerequisite condition being met” (see ¶ [0037]; transmitter selects number of data streams based on a characteristic of the communication link; the characteristic of the communication link may be the signal-to-noise ratio; a table may define various values for p based on threshold values (prerequisite condition) of the signal-to-noise ratio. Thus, Sayeed discloses the transmitter, prior to transmitting the data streams (i.e., transmissions), evaluating whether the signal-to-noise ratio satisfies a stored threshold (i.e., prerequisite condition), and transmits the data streams (i.e., transmissions) based a threshold being met (i.e., in response to the prerequisite condition being met)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989 to incorporate the teachings of Sayeed to have the network entity, prior to transmitting the multiple transmissions, evaluate a prerequisite condition, and transmit the transmissions in response to the condition being met. The suggestion to do so would have been to reduce the fluctuations in the signal-to-noise ratio (see ¶ [0027] of Sayeed).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Maltsev, Raghavan ‘989, and Sayeed teach the apparatus of claim 22, and further teaches “wherein the prerequisite condition is based on one or more of: a number of dominant clusters in a channel between the network entity and the UE, an angular spread associated with each of the dominant clusters, a transmitting antenna array dimension at the network entity, a receiving antenna array dimension at the UE, a mobility condition between the network entity and the UE, and a rate requirement between the network entity and the UE” (see ¶ [0037] of Sayeed; transmitter selects number of data streams based on a characteristic of the communication link; the characteristic of the communication link may be the signal-to-noise ratio; a table may define various values for p based on threshold values of the signal-to-noise ratio (i.e., the prerequisite condition based on a rate requirement between transmitter (e.g., network entity) and receiver (e.g., UE))). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have modified the invention of Maltsev in view of Raghavan ‘989 to incorporate the teachings of Sayeed to have the prerequisite condition based on the prerequisite condition based on a rate requirement between the network entity and the UE. The suggestion to do so would have been to reduce the fluctuations in the signal-to-noise ratio (see ¶ [0027] of Sayeed).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY whose telephone number is (571)272-7655. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 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, Khaled Kassim can be reached at (571) 270-3770. 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.
/SRIHARSHA REDDY VANGAPATY/ Examiner, Art Unit 2475
/HASHIM S BHATTI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475