DETAILED ACTION
This office action response the amendment application on 03/23/2026.
Claims 1-30 are presented for examination.
Notice of 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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (lDSs) submitted on May 13, 2026 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
This is in response to the amendments filed on March 23, 2026. No Claims have been amended. Claims 1-30 are pending and have been considered below.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed May 12, 2023 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues, on page 2 of the Remarks, that KO et al. in view of JI et al. fails to teach or suggest several limitations recited in claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 21. Examiner respectfully disagrees.
At the outset, the Examiner notes that pending claims are interpreted under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) consistent with the specification as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (during prosecution, claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification). Further, non-obviousness cannot be established by attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon a combination of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425 (CCPA 1981). Additionally, a reference need not expressly disclose the identical terminology used in the claims if the reference nevertheless teaches the claimed subject matter under a reasonable interpretation. See In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation:
“transmitting, by the base station, to the wireless device, and in the transmission time interval, a control channel comprising one or more control packets that comprise scheduling information for the data channel”
reasonably encompasses transmitting downlink control information during a subframe or TTI that informs a wireless device regarding allocation or scheduling of associated data resources.
Likewise, the limitation:
“wherein the control channel is precoded employing a second precoding matrix, different from the first precoding matrix, that is based on the channel state information”
reasonably encompasses using different beamforming or precoding operations for control and data channels based on CSI feedback, including dynamically selected precoding associated with channel conditions, relay grouping, beam allocation, or channel estimation optimization.
Further, the recited limitations regarding “submatrix,” “linear transformation,” and “smaller number of columns” broadly encompass deriving a reduced-dimension precoding matrix from a larger precoding matrix through selection, extraction, transformation, or dimensional reduction of rows and/or columns. The claims do not require any particular mathematical implementation beyond such reasonable relationships.
Response to Argument 1 – Claims 1, 11, and 21
The Applicant argues that the combination of Ko and Ji fails to disclose:
“transmitting … a control channel … wherein the control channel is precoded employing a second precoding matrix, different from the first precoding matrix, that is based on the channel state information.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ko discloses transmitting, by the base station, to a wireless device, a downlink control channel during a transmission time interval or subframe. Specifically, Ko discloses a downlink subframe and transmission during a TTI (see Ko, paragraphs [0055], [0062], [0131], [0306], Fig. 3, and page 8, lines 10–15). Ko further discloses a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) transmitting scheduling and control information associated with data transmission (see paragraphs [0062], [0074], page 14, lines 9–22, and Fig. 3). Ko additionally teaches data channel precoding using precoding matrices derived from channel state information feedback, including PMI feedback (see paragraphs [0108]-[0109] and [0138]-[0144], Fig. 16).
Although Ko may not explicitly disclose that the control channel itself employs a second precoding matrix different from the first precoding matrix, Ji expressly teaches such differentiation between control-channel and data-channel precoding operations based on channel conditions and reference signaling.
Ji discloses that relay control channels and relay data channels utilize different precoding operations and dedicated reference signals to improve channel estimation and transmission reliability (see Ji, page 3, lines [0010]-[0011]; page 4, line [0013]; page 13, lines [62]-[63]; and Fig. 5). Ji further teaches that different precoding is applied between groups depending upon channel correlation and beamforming requirements. Ji additionally discloses that PDCCH coding and transmission parameters may vary according to channel state information of the receiving terminal (see page 9, paragraph [0044]).
Accordingly, Ji teaches that control-channel transmissions employ precoding operations distinct from those used for data channels and that such operations are determined based upon channel conditions and CSI-related feedback. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to apply Ji’s differentiated CSI-based control-channel precoding techniques within Ko’s MU-MIMO downlink scheduling framework in order to improve control-channel reliability, beamforming accuracy, and interference mitigation among users and relay groups.
The rationale for combining the references is consistent with KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007), which held that a combination is obvious when a skilled artisan would have recognized predictable improvements resulting from combining familiar elements according to known methods. Here, using different CSI-based precoding matrices for control and data channels merely represents the predictable use of known wireless communication techniques to improve channel-specific transmission performance.
Therefore, the combination of Ko and Ji teaches or at least renders obvious the disputed limitation.
Response to Argument 2 – Claim 5
The Applicant argues that the cited art fails to teach:
“wherein the second precoding matrix comprises a submatrix of the first precoding matrix.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Melzer et al. discloses deriving one precoding matrix from another precoding matrix, including construction of reduced or secondary precoding matrices from larger matrix structures (see paragraphs [0010] and [0018]). Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a matrix derived from another matrix through extraction or reduction reasonably constitutes a “submatrix.”
The claim does not require a specific mathematical extraction technique or exact indexing operation. Rather, the claim broadly recites that the second matrix “comprises a submatrix” of the first matrix. Melzer’s disclosure of deriving secondary matrices from primary precoding matrices reasonably satisfies this limitation.
Moreover, it would have been obvious to utilize a reduced or derived matrix for control-channel transmission because control signaling generally requires fewer transmission layers and reduced dimensionality relative to high-throughput data channels. Such optimization represents routine signal-processing design choice well within the ordinary skill in the art.
See In re ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 496 F.3d 1374, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2007), explaining that adapting known techniques for predictable variations constitutes obviousness.
Therefore, the cited combination teaches or renders obvious claim 5.
Response to Argument 3 – Claim 6
The Applicant argues that the references fail to disclose:
“wherein the second precoding matrix is based on a linear transformation on a subset of rows and columns of the first precoding matrix.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Kim et al. discloses that secondary precoding matrices may be generated from linear combinations of column vectors associated with a primary precoding matrix (see paragraph [0016]). Such operations necessarily involve mathematical transformations applied to subsets of rows and/or columns.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “linear transformation” broadly encompasses matrix operations involving combinations, mappings, reductions, or transformations of vector subsets. The claim does not narrowly require any specific transformation algorithm, decomposition method, or orthogonality constraint.
Accordingly, Kim expressly teaches the claimed relationship between first and second precoding matrices.
Furthermore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that applying linear transformations to subsets of precoding matrices constitutes a standard mathematical technique for adapting transmission layers, beamforming characteristics, or antenna mapping configurations. See KSR, 550 U.S. at 421, explaining that ordinary creativity and common sense may be applied by a skilled artisan when combining known techniques.
Therefore, claim 6 is properly rejected.
Response to Argument 4 – Claim 7
The Applicant argues that the references fail to disclose:
“the second precoding matrix comprises a smaller number of columns than the first precoding matrix.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Kim discloses precoding matrices configured for different numbers of antenna ports and transmission streams, including mappings involving reduced dimensions relative to larger matrix structures (see paragraphs [0010] and [0018]). A reduced-dimension precoding matrix inherently includes fewer columns relative to a larger matrix supporting additional transmission layers or antenna streams.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation merely requires that the second matrix possess fewer columns than the first matrix. Kim’s disclosure of mapping reduced numbers of streams and antenna-port configurations reasonably satisfies this requirement.
Moreover, reducing matrix dimensionality for control channels would have been obvious because control channels generally transmit lower-rate signaling information requiring fewer spatial layers than data channels. Such optimization reduces processing complexity and improves signaling robustness.
See In re Ethicon, Inc., 844 F.3d 1344, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2017), reaffirming that selecting known alternatives according to expected results is ordinarily obvious.
Therefore, the cited combination teaches or renders obvious claim 7.
Response to Argument 5 – Claim 9
The Applicant argues that the combination fails to disclose:
“first channel state information reference signals transmitted by the base station and associated with the data channel; and second channel state information reference signals transmitted by the base station and associated with the control channel.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Ko discloses downlink reference signals transmitted from the eNB to the UE for channel estimation and channel-state-related operations (see paragraph [0155] and page 47, lines 12–15). These reference signals are associated with downlink transmission channels, including data transmission operations.
Ko further discloses control-channel signaling transmitted via PDCCH, including downlink control information associated with scheduling and power-control operations (see paragraph [0062], Fig. 3, and page 14, lines 9–22).
Ji additionally teaches dedicated reference signals associated separately with control channels and data channels for improving channel estimation and multiplexing among relay groups (see page 4, line [0013]; page 13, lines [62]-[63]; and Fig. 5). Ji explicitly distinguishes between reference signaling associated with control-channel precoding and reference signaling associated with data-channel transmission.
Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, the claims merely require first and second CSI-related reference signals associated respectively with data and control channels. The combined teachings of Ko and Ji clearly disclose or at least render obvious separate reference signaling associated with respective control and data transmission operations.
The Applicant’s arguments improperly attack the references individually rather than considering the teachings of the combination as a whole. See In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Accordingly, the combination of Ko, Ji, Melzer, and Kim collectively teaches or renders obvious all limitations presently recited in claims 1, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, and 21.
Therefore, Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-2, 8-12, 18-22, and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over KO at al. (WO 2011129585A2), however the English 371 application (US 20130058295 A1) will be cited for convince. Hereinafter “D1”, in view of JI et al. (International Application Publication No. WO/2011/019238), (“D2”, hereinafter).
As per Claim 1, D1 discloses a method comprising:
receiving, by a base station from a wireless device, channel state information ([see, [0305], and Fig. 24: S2430, and page 96, lines 7-22, the uplink channel that receives the channel state information]);
transmitting, by the base station, to the wireless device, and in a transmission time interval (one subframe ) ([see, [0062, 0306], and Fig. 3, 24, and page 8, lines 10-15, a downlink subframe]), a data channel (see, Fig. 3, a data region to which a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH)) comprising one or more data packets ([see, [0062], and Fig. 3, page 47, lines 12-15, wherein the OFDM symbols correspond to a data region to which a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) is allocated]),
transmitting, by the base station, to the wireless device, and in the transmission time interval (see, Fig 3, one subframe ) ([see, [0062], [0163], and Fig. 3, page 47, lines 1-5, one subframe corresponds to a control region to which a control channel is allocated]), a control channel (see, [0062], and Fig. 3, a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) comprising one or more control packets that comprise scheduling information for the data channel ([see, [0062], and Fig. 3, and page 14, lines 9-22, Control information transmitted through the PDCCH is referred to as downlink control information (DCI). DCI includes uplink or downlink scheduling information (control packets) or an uplink transmit power control command for a certain terminal group]),
wherein the data channel is precoded employing a first precoding matrix (first PMI) that is based on the channel state information ([see, [0013, 0304, 0307], The eNB may determine the number of layers, a precoder, and an MCS level for downlink transmission based on the CSI (RI/PMI/CQI) and transmit a downlink signal based on the determined information]).
D1 doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose: the control channel is precoded employing a second precoding matrix (second PMI); and wherein the second precoding matrix is different from the first precoding matrix.
However, D2 discloses the control channel is precoded employing a second precoding matrix (second PMI) ([see, page 13, [62], and Fig. 5, precoding used in the control channel]); and
wherein the second precoding matrix is different from the first precoding matrix ([see, page 13, [62], and Fig. 5, The precoding used in the control channel and the precoding used in the data channel are different from each other]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the teachings of D2 and incorporate the above features in the invention of D1 in order to improve channel estimation performance of a subframe in a reception device of a wireless communication system (D2, [10]).
As per Claim 11, D1 discloses a base station ([Fig. 25, eNB) comprising:
one or more processors ([Fig. 25, item 2513 processor disclosed); and
memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors ([Fig. 25, item 2513 and 2514 memory and processor disclosed), configure the base station to:
receive, from a wireless device, channel state information ([see, [0305], and Fig. 24: S2430, and page 96, lines 7-22, the uplink channel that receives the channel state information]);
transmit, to the wireless device and in a transmission time interval (one subframe ) ([see, [0062, 0306], and Fig. 3, 24, and page 8, lines 10-15, a downlink subframe]), a data channel (see, Fig. 3, a data region to which a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH)) comprising one or more data packets ([see, [0062], and Fig. 3, page 47, lines 12-15, wherein the OFDM symbols correspond to a data region to which a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) is allocated]),
transmit, by the base station, to the wireless device, and in the transmission time interval (see, Fig 3, one subframe ) ([see, [0062], [0163], and Fig. 3, page 47, lines 1-5, one subframe corresponds to a control region to which a control channel is allocated]), a control channel (see, [0062], and Fig. 3, a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) comprising one or more control packets that comprise scheduling information for the data channel ([see, [0062], and Fig. 3, and page 14, lines 9-22, Control information transmitted through the PDCCH is referred to as downlink control information (DCI). DCI includes uplink or downlink scheduling information (control packets) or an uplink transmit power control command for a certain terminal group]), wherein the data channel is precoded employing a first precoding matrix (first PMI) that is based on the channel state information ([see, [0013, 0304, 0307], The eNB may determine the number of layers, a precoder, and an MCS level for downlink transmission based on the CSI (RI/PMI/CQI) and transmit a downlink signal based on the determined information]).
D1 doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose: the control channel is precoded employing a second precoding matrix (second PMI); and wherein the second precoding matrix is different from the first precoding matrix.
However, D2 discloses the control channel is precoded employing a second precoding matrix (second PMI) ([see, page 13, [62], and Fig. 5, precoding used in the control channel]); and
wherein the second precoding matrix is different from the first precoding matrix ([see, page 13, [62], and Fig. 5, The precoding used in the control channel and the precoding used in the data channel are different from each other]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the teachings of D2 and incorporate the above features in the invention of D1 in order to improve channel estimation performance of a subframe in a reception device of a wireless communication system (D2, [10]).
As per Claims 2, 12, D1 further discloses wherein: the data channel is transmitted via a first plurality of orthogonal frequency division multiplexed (OFDM) subcarriers ([see, [0058], OFDM symbols may be allocated to a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH)]), and the control channel is transmitted via a second plurality of OFDM subcarriers that is different from the first plurality of OFDM subcarriers ([see, [0058], two or three OFDM symbols of each subframe may be allocated to a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH)]).
As per Claims 8, 18, D1 further discloses further comprising transmitting, by the base station to the wireless device, channel state information reference signals ([see, [0304], the eNB may transmit CSI-RSs]), wherein the received channel state information is based on the channel state information reference signals ([see, [0139, 0304], UE may transmit the results of measuring a downlink channel state in the CSI-RSs (an RI, a PMI, CQI, etc.)]).
As per Claims 9, 19, D1 further discloses wherein the received channel state information is based on: channel state information reference signals transmitted by the base station and associated with the data channel ([see, [0155], and page 47, lines 12-15, UE may receive a downlink reference signal (DL RS) from an eNB]); and channel state information reference signals transmitted by the base station and associated with the control channel ([see, [0062], and Fig. 3, and page 14, lines 9-22, Control information transmitted through the PDCCH is referred to as downlink control information (DCI). DCI includes uplink or downlink scheduling information or an uplink transmit power control command for a certain terminal group]).
As per Claims 10, 20, D1 further discloses wherein receiving the channel state information comprises: receiving first channel state information associated with the data channel ([see, [0164], and page 47, lines 12-15, channel information is transmitted through a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) together with data]); and receiving second channel state information associated with the control channel ([see, [0062], and Fig. 3, and page 14, lines 9-22, Control information transmitted through the PDCCH is referred to as downlink control information (DCI). DCI includes uplink or downlink scheduling information or an uplink transmit power control command for a certain terminal group]).
As per Claim 21, D1 discloses a system comprising:
a base station ([Fig. 25, item 2510 the eNB) and a wireless device ([Fig. 25, item 2520 the UE), wherein the base station is configured to:
receive, from a wireless device, channel state information ([see, [0305], and Fig. 24: S2430, and page 96, lines 7-22, the uplink channel that receives the channel state information]);
transmit, to the wireless device and in a transmission time interval (one subframe ) ([see, [0062, 0306], and Fig. 3, 24, and page 8, lines 10-15, a downlink subframe]), a data channel (see, Fig. 3, a data region to which a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH)) comprising one or more data packets ([see, [0062], and Fig. 3, page 47, lines 12-15, wherein the OFDM symbols correspond to a data region to which a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH) is allocated]),
wherein the data channel is precoded employing a first precoding matrix (first PMI) that is based on the channel state information ([see, [0013, 0304, 0307], The eNB may determine the number of layers, a precoder, and an MCS level for downlink transmission based on the CSI (RI/PMI/CQI) and transmit a downlink signal based on the determined information]).
transmit, by the base station, to the wireless device, and in the transmission time interval (see, Fig 3, one subframe ) ([see, [0062], [0163], and Fig. 3, page 47, lines 1-5, one subframe corresponds to a control region to which a control channel is allocated]), a control channel (see, [0062], and Fig. 3, a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH) comprising one or more control packets that comprise scheduling information for the data channel ([see, [0062], and Fig. 3, and page 14, lines 9-22, Control information transmitted through the PDCCH is referred to as downlink control information (DCI). DCI includes uplink or downlink scheduling information (control packets) or an uplink transmit power control command for a certain terminal group]).
D1 doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose: the control channel is precoded employing a second precoding matrix (second PMI); and wherein the second precoding matrix is different from the first precoding matrix.
However, D2 discloses the control channel is precoded employing a second precoding matrix (second PMI) ([see, page 13, [62], and Fig. 5, precoding used in the control channel]); and
wherein the second precoding matrix is different from the first precoding matrix ([see, page 13, [62], and Fig. 5, The precoding used in the control channel and the precoding used in the data channel are different from each other]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the teachings of D2 and incorporate the above features in the invention of D1 in order to improve channel estimation performance of a subframe in a reception device of a wireless communication system (D2, [10]).
As per Claim 22, D1 and D2 disclose the system of claim 21, and D1 further discloses wherein: the data channel is transmitted via a first plurality of orthogonal frequency division multiplexed (OFDM) subcarriers ([see, [0058], OFDM symbols may be allocated to a Physical Downlink Shared Channel (PDSCH)]), and the control channel is transmitted via a second plurality of OFDM subcarriers that is different from the first plurality of OFDM subcarriers ([see, [0058], two or three OFDM symbols of each subframe may be allocated to a Physical Downlink Control Channel (PDCCH)]).
As per Claim 28, D1 and D2 disclose the system of claim 21, and D1 further discloses further comprising transmitting, by the base station to the wireless device, channel state information reference signals ([see, [0304], the eNB may transmit CSI-RSs]), wherein the received channel state information is based on the channel state information reference signals ([see, [0139, 0304], UE may transmit the results of measuring a downlink channel state in the CSI-RSs (an RI, a PMI, CQI, etc.)]).
As per Claim 29, D1 and D2 disclose the system of claim 21, and D1 further discloses wherein the received channel state information is based on: channel state information reference signals transmitted by the base station and associated with the data channel ([see, [0164], and page 47, lines 12-15, channel information is transmitted through a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) together with data]); and channel state information reference signals transmitted by the base station and associated with the control channel ([see, [0062], and Fig. 3, and page 14, lines 9-22, Control information transmitted through the PDCCH is referred to as downlink control information (DCI). DCI includes uplink or downlink scheduling information or an uplink transmit power control command for a certain terminal group]).
As per Claim 30, D1 and D2 disclose the system of claim 21, and, D1 further discloses wherein receiving the channel state information comprises: receiving first channel state information associated with the data channel ([see, [0164], and page 47, lines 12-15, channel information is transmitted through a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) together with data]); and receiving second channel state information associated with the control channel ([see, [0062], and Fig. 3, and page 14, lines 9-22, Control information transmitted through the PDCCH is referred to as downlink control information (DCI). DCI includes uplink or downlink scheduling information or an uplink transmit power control command for a certain terminal group]).
Claims 3-5, 7, 13-15, 17, 23-25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over D1, in view of D2, farther in view of Melzer et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20100172430), (“D3”, hereinafter).
As per Claims 3, 13, 23, D1 doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the second precoding matrix uses a smaller number of multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) layers than the first precoding matrix.
However, D3 discloses wherein the second precoding matrix uses a smaller number of multiple-input-multiple-output (MIMO) layers than the first precoding matrix ([see, [0018-0020], and Fig. 1, a transmitter and a receiver with a set of precoding matrices for mapping up to N data streams onto N transmit antenna ports. This set of precoding matrices is derived from sets of precoding matrices that are defined for numbers of transmit antenna ports smaller than N]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the teachings of D3 and incorporate precoding matrices for mapping up to N data streams features in the invention of D1 in order to improves system performance (D3, [0049]).
As per Claims 4, 14, 24, D1 doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the second precoding matrix comprises a column vector.
However, D3 discloses wherein the second precoding matrix comprises a column vector ([see, [0008-0009], wherein a subset of columns of a given matrix, the second precoding matrices are defined for mapping onto two antenna ports). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the teachings of D3 and incorporate columns matrix features in the invention of D1 in order to improves system performance (D3, [0049]).
As per Claims 5, 15, 25, D1 doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the second precoding matrix comprises a submatrix of the first precoding matrix.
However, D3 discloses wherein the second precoding matrix comprises a submatrix of the first precoding matrix ([see, [0010, 0018], the first precoding matrices derived from respective second and third precoding matrices). Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the teachings of D3 and incorporate matrices derived from respective precoding matrices features in the invention of D1 in order to improves system performance (D3, [0049]).
As per Claims 7, 17, D1 doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the second precoding matrix comprises a smaller number of columns than the first precoding matrix.
However, D3 discloses wherein the second precoding matrix comprises a smaller number of columns than the first precoding matrix ([see, [0010, 0018], precoding matrices configured for mapping onto respective numbers of transmit antenna ports that are less than N, to map the data streams onto the N transmit antenna ports using a precoding scheme based on one of the first precoding matrices]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the teachings of D3 and incorporate precoding matrix mapping features in the invention of D1 in order to improves system performance (D3, [0049]).
As per Claim 27, D1 and D2 disclose the system of claim 21, and D1 doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the second precoding matrix comprises a smaller number of columns than the first precoding matrix.
However, D3 discloses wherein the second precoding matrix comprises a smaller number of columns than the first precoding matrix ([see, [0010, 0018], precoding matrices configured for mapping onto respective numbers of transmit antenna ports that are less than N, to map the data streams onto the N transmit antenna ports using a precoding scheme based on one of the first precoding matrices]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the teachings of D3 and incorporate precoding matrix mapping features in the invention of D1 in order to improves system performance (D3, [0049]).
Claims 6, 16, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over D1, in view of D2, farther in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20120051257), (“D4”, hereinafter).
As per Claims 6, 16, D1 doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the second precoding matrix is based on a linear transformation on a subset of rows and columns of the first precoding matrix.
However, D4 discloses wherein the second precoding matrix is based on a linear transformation on a subset of rows and columns of the first precoding matrix ([see, [0016], the second precoding matrix have a linear combination of column vectors of the first precoding matrix]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the teachings of D4 and incorporate the linear combination of column vectors features in the invention of D1 in order to improve the reliability of transmission (D4, [0039]).
As per Claim 26, D1 and D2 disclose the system of claim 21, and D1 doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose: wherein the second precoding matrix is based on a linear transformation on a subset of rows and columns of the first precoding matrix
However, D4 discloses wherein the second precoding matrix is based on a linear transformation on a subset of rows and columns of the first precoding matrix ([see, [0016], the second precoding matrix have a linear combination of column vectors of the first precoding matrix]).
Therefore, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the teachings of D4 and incorporate the linear combination of column vectors features in the invention of D1 in order to improve the reliability of transmission (D4, [0039]).
Conclusion
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 extension fee 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
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).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERHANU D BELETE whose telephone number is (571)272-3478. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 7:30am-5pm, Alt. Friday, and EDT.
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, JEONG, MOO R. can be reached on (571) 272-9617. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BERHANU D BELETE/Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/WUTCHUNG CHU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights