DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/27/2025 was filed after the mailing date of the application on 04/20/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 11/21/2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 12 have been amended. Claims 4, 11, 15, and 22 have been canceled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 2 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claims 2 and 13 both recite “the determining of the subset of the plurality of candidate wireless devices is based at least on spatial separability of the plurality of candidate wireless devices” which is already recited in independent claims 1 and 12 in “determine a subset of the plurality of candidate wireless devices for Multiple-Input Multiple-Output, MIMO, grouping based at least on the ICC of a MIMO transmission to the MIMO grouping and spatial separability of the plurality of candidate wireless devices”. Applicant may cancel the claims, amend the claims to place the claims in proper dependent form, rewrite the claims in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claims complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 1-2, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 2004/0125900), hereinafter Liu in further view of Ferrante et al. (US 2019/0149199), hereinafter Ferrante and Marupaduga et al. (US 11,140,639), hereinafter Marupaduga.
Regarding Claim 1, Liu teaches: A network node comprising: processing circuitry: “A data processor 113 processes the resultant r baseband signals and converts them back into t data streams, corresponding to the t data streams at the outputs of modulators 107-1-107-t” (Liu ¶ 0013) and “the transmitter end can be a base station and the receiver end a wireless unit or, alternatively, the transmitter end can be a wireless unit and the receiver end a base unit” (Liu ¶ 0029); configured to: determine an information carrying capacity, ICC, based at least on a channel variation coefficient for each of a plurality of candidate wireless devices: “the per antenna capacity for each channel has been determined to be a predefined function of selected channel coefficients, h, also known as the channel state information, in the instantaneous channel response matrix, H. The matrix H represents the response of the channel to a transmitted signal as the signal is affected by the amplitude and phase variations caused by the channel. The coefficients in the matrix H represent the operands upon an input signal, which transform a transmitted signal into a received signal due to the amplitude and phase variations imposed upon the transmitted signal by the channel conditions. The coefficients in the channel response matrix are determinable at the receiver end. In addition to the channel coefficients, h, the capacity of each transmitter antenna is also function of the number of transmitter antennas, t, and the average signal to noise (S/N) ratio, .rho., the latter measured at the receiver. Since channel conditions are constantly changing over a wireless channel, the capacity of each transmitter antenna is constantly updated” (Liu ¶ 0005).
Liu does not teach: the ICC corresponding to a number of bits that are transmittable per second per resource while meeting a target bit error rate; determine a subset of the plurality of candidate wireless devices for Multiple-Input Multiple-Output, MIMO, grouping based at least on the ICC of a MIMO transmission to the MIMO grouping and spatial separability of the plurality of candidate wireless devices; and cause the MIMO transmission to the MIMO grouping.
Regarding Claim 1, Ferrante teaches: the ICC corresponding to a number of bits that are transmittable per second per resource while meeting a target bit error rate: “Channel coding and modulation may be designed as separate entities. For instance, a specific information bit rate and desired target bit error rate (BER) may be targeted. If channel coding is used to reach the target BER, the information bit rate (e.g., assuming a fixed bandwidth) may be reduced because of the redundancy added to the information bit stream. This reduction in the information rate may be handled, for example by using a higher order modulation format. The higher order modulation format, however, may decrease the distance between constellation points, which may in turn have a negative effect on the BER performance” (Ferrante ¶ 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Liu with Ferrante for the purpose of enhancing performance of a network system. According to Ferrante: “By designing the coding and modulation jointly, the overall performance of the system may be enhanced (e.g., in terms of requiring a smaller signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for the same spectral efficiency)” (Ferrante ¶ 0071).
Ferrante does not teach: determine a subset of the plurality of candidate wireless devices for Multiple-Input Multiple-Output, MIMO, grouping based at least on the ICC of a MIMO transmission to the MIMO grouping and spatial separability of the plurality of candidate wireless devices; and cause the MIMO transmission to the MIMO grouping.
Regarding Claim 1, Marupaduga teaches: determine a subset of the plurality of candidate wireless devices for Multiple-Input Multiple-Output, MIMO, grouping based at least on the ICC of a MIMO transmission to the MIMO grouping and spatial separability of the plurality of candidate wireless devices: “To facilitate MU-MIMO service, the UEs that will share air-interface resources (e.g., PRBs) should be “orthogonal” to each other, meaning that each UE could receive spatially separate transmissions from the base station without undue interference from the base station's transmissions to each other UE. Thus, when a base station is going to apply MU-MIMO (perhaps in response to the base station being heavily loaded with connected UEs with high throughput requirements), the base station could select a group of UEs to be a MU-MIMO group based on the UEs being orthogonal to each other” (Marupaduga Col 3 Lines 45-55); and cause the MIMO transmission to the MIMO grouping: “a base station can modulate data streams destined to each of multiple UEs on the same PRBs as each other and can transmit the modulated data streams on a separate respective propagation paths for receipt by the UEs. To facilitate this, the base station could pre-code transmissions on each propagation path using weighted coefficients based on channel estimates from the UEs, in a manner that enables each UE to remove cross-talk and receive its intended data. Further, the base station could beamform the transmissions respectively to each UE to help physically distinguish the transmissions from each other” (Marupaduga Col 2-3 Lines 60-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Liu and Ferrante with Marupaduga for the purpose of responsively allocating particular uplink air-interface resources to carry data. According to Marupaduga: “when a UE has data to transmit to the base station, the UE could transmit to the base station an uplink resource grant request, the base station could responsively allocate particular uplink air-interface resources to carry the data, and the UE could then transmit the data to the base station on the allocated uplink resources” Marupaduga Col 1-2 Lines 66-5).
Regarding Claim 2, Liu and Ferrante teach: The network node of claim 1.
Liu and Ferrante do not teach: the determining of the subset of the plurality of candidate wireless devices is based at least on spatial separability of the plurality of candidate wireless devices.
Regarding Claim 2, Marupaduga teaches: the determining of the subset of the plurality of candidate wireless devices is based at least on spatial separability of the plurality of candidate wireless devices: “To facilitate MU-MIMO service, the UEs that will share air-interface resources (e.g., PRBs) should be “orthogonal” to each other, meaning that each UE could receive spatially separate transmissions from the base station without undue interference from the base station's transmissions to each other UE. Thus, when a base station is going to apply MU-MIMO (perhaps in response to the base station being heavily loaded with connected UEs with high throughput requirements), the base station could select a group of UEs to be a MU-MIMO group based on the UEs being orthogonal to each other” (Marupaduga Col 3 Lines 45-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Liu and Ferrante with Marupaduga for the purpose of responsively allocating particular uplink air-interface resources to carry data. According to Marupaduga: “when a UE has data to transmit to the base station, the UE could transmit to the base station an uplink resource grant request, the base station could responsively allocate particular uplink air-interface resources to carry the data, and the UE could then transmit the data to the base station on the allocated uplink resources” Marupaduga Col 1-2 Lines 66-5).
Regarding Claim 12, Liu teaches: A method implemented by a network node comprising: determining an information carrying capacity, ICC, based at least on a channel variation coefficient for each of a plurality of candidate wireless devices: “the per antenna capacity for each channel has been determined to be a predefined function of selected channel coefficients, h, also known as the channel state information, in the instantaneous channel response matrix, H. The matrix H represents the response of the channel to a transmitted signal as the signal is affected by the amplitude and phase variations caused by the channel. The coefficients in the matrix H represent the operands upon an input signal, which transform a transmitted signal into a received signal due to the amplitude and phase variations imposed upon the transmitted signal by the channel conditions. The coefficients in the channel response matrix are determinable at the receiver end. In addition to the channel coefficients, h, the capacity of each transmitter antenna is also function of the number of transmitter antennas, t, and the average signal to noise (S/N) ratio, .rho., the latter measured at the receiver. Since channel conditions are constantly changing over a wireless channel, the capacity of each transmitter antenna is constantly updated” (Liu ¶ 0005).
Liu does not teach: the ICC corresponding to a number of bits that are transmittable per second per resource while meeting a target bit error rate; determining a subset of the plurality of candidate wireless devices for Multiple-Input Multiple-Output, MIMO, grouping based at least on the ICC of a MIMO transmission to the MIMO grouping and spatial separability of the plurality of candidate wireless devices; and causing the MIMO transmission to the MIMO grouping.
Regarding Claim 12, Ferrante teaches: the ICC corresponding to a number of bits that are transmittable per second per resource while meeting a target bit error rate: “Channel coding and modulation may be designed as separate entities. For instance, a specific information bit rate and desired target bit error rate (BER) may be targeted. If channel coding is used to reach the target BER, the information bit rate (e.g., assuming a fixed bandwidth) may be reduced because of the redundancy added to the information bit stream. This reduction in the information rate may be handled, for example by using a higher order modulation format. The higher order modulation format, however, may decrease the distance between constellation points, which may in turn have a negative effect on the BER performance” (Ferrante ¶ 0070).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Liu with Ferrante for the purpose of enhancing performance of a network system. According to Ferrante: “By designing the coding and modulation jointly, the overall performance of the system may be enhanced (e.g., in terms of requiring a smaller signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) for the same spectral efficiency)” (Ferrante ¶ 0071).
Ferrante does not teach: determining a subset of the plurality of candidate wireless devices for Multiple-Input Multiple-Output, MIMO, grouping based at least on the ICC of a MIMO transmission to the MIMO grouping and spatial separability of the plurality of candidate wireless devices; and causing the MIMO transmission to the MIMO grouping.
Regarding Claim 12, Marupaduga teaches: determining a subset of the plurality of candidate wireless devices for Multiple-Input Multiple-Output, MIMO, grouping based at least on the ICC of a MIMO transmission to the MIMO grouping and spatial separability of the plurality of candidate wireless devices: “To facilitate MU-MIMO service, the UEs that will share air-interface resources (e.g., PRBs) should be “orthogonal” to each other, meaning that each UE could receive spatially separate transmissions from the base station without undue interference from the base station's transmissions to each other UE. Thus, when a base station is going to apply MU-MIMO (perhaps in response to the base station being heavily loaded with connected UEs with high throughput requirements), the base station could select a group of UEs to be a MU-MIMO group based on the UEs being orthogonal to each other” (Marupaduga Col 3 Lines 45-55); and causing the MIMO transmission to the MIMO grouping: “a base station can modulate data streams destined to each of multiple UEs on the same PRBs as each other and can transmit the modulated data streams on a separate respective propagation paths for receipt by the UEs. To facilitate this, the base station could pre-code transmissions on each propagation path using weighted coefficients based on channel estimates from the UEs, in a manner that enables each UE to remove cross-talk and receive its intended data. Further, the base station could beamform the transmissions respectively to each UE to help physically distinguish the transmissions from each other” (Marupaduga Col 2-3 Lines 60-3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Liu and Ferrante with Marupaduga for the purpose of responsively allocating particular uplink air-interface resources to carry data. According to Marupaduga: “when a UE has data to transmit to the base station, the UE could transmit to the base station an uplink resource grant request, the base station could responsively allocate particular uplink air-interface resources to carry the data, and the UE could then transmit the data to the base station on the allocated uplink resources” Marupaduga Col 1-2 Lines 66-5).
Regarding Claim 13, Liu and Ferrante teach: The method of claim 12.
Liu and Ferrante do not teach: the determining of the subset of the plurality of candidate wireless devices is based at least on spatial separability of the plurality of candidate wireless devices.
Regarding Claim 13, Marupaduga teaches: the determining of the subset of the plurality of candidate wireless devices is based at least on spatial separability of the plurality of candidate wireless devices: “To facilitate MU-MIMO service, the UEs that will share air-interface resources (e.g., PRBs) should be “orthogonal” to each other, meaning that each UE could receive spatially separate transmissions from the base station without undue interference from the base station's transmissions to each other UE. Thus, when a base station is going to apply MU-MIMO (perhaps in response to the base station being heavily loaded with connected UEs with high throughput requirements), the base station could select a group of UEs to be a MU-MIMO group based on the UEs being orthogonal to each other” (Marupaduga Col 3 Lines 45-55).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Liu and Ferrante with Marupaduga for the purpose of responsively allocating particular uplink air-interface resources to carry data. According to Marupaduga: “when a UE has data to transmit to the base station, the UE could transmit to the base station an uplink resource grant request, the base station could responsively allocate particular uplink air-interface resources to carry the data, and the UE could then transmit the data to the base station on the allocated uplink resources” Marupaduga Col 1-2 Lines 66-5).
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Studer et al. (US 2020/0382228), hereinafter Studer.
Regarding Claim 3, Liu, Ferrante and Marupaduga teach: The network node of claim 1.
Liu and Ferrante with Marupaduga do not teach: the plurality of candidate wireless devices are associated with pairwise spatial metrics that meet a spatial pairing threshold: “UL MU-MIMO pairing can be a function of Γ and SINR. For a given Γ, only UEs of SINR larger than a certain threshold (which is a function of Γ – see Figure 1) can be paired” (3GPP Page 2 last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 3, Studer teaches: the plurality of candidate wireless devices are associated with pairwise spatial metrics that meet a spatial pairing threshold: “the wireless system comprises a massive MIMO BS with a uniform linear array (ULA) of B=32 antennas receiving data from N=2048 UE locations. We simulate a narrowband, line-of-sight (LoS) channel at a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 0 dB. As will be described in more detail below, an example channel chart generated in such a system uses pairs of transmitters, with each pair being associated with a pairwise spatial distance and a pairwise feature dissimilarity. The channel features are designed to ensure that the pairwise feature dissimilarity is approximately lowerbounded by the pairwise spatial distance (when divided by a suitable reference distance). Thus, UEs that are far apart in space will have dissimilar channel features” (Studer ¶ 0084).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga with Studer for the purpose of proactively reducing communication rates so as to prevent transmission failure. According to Studer: “The generated proximity map indicates if multiple wireless devices are at a common location, which can be used to guide the adaptation of communication rates for each such user. If a wireless device moves towards the cell boundary, as extracted from the proximity and velocity information, the rate can preventively be reduced even before the device will be in an area of bad reception. This mitigates transmission failures and improves communication reliability” (Studer ¶ 0035).
Regarding Claim 14, Liu, Ferrante and Marupaduga teach: The method of claim 12.
Liu and Ferrante with Marupaduga do not teach: the plurality of candidate wireless devices are associated with pairwise spatial metrics that meet a spatial pairing threshold: “UL MU-MIMO pairing can be a function of Γ and SINR. For a given Γ, only UEs of SINR larger than a certain threshold (which is a function of Γ – see Figure 1) can be paired” (3GPP Page 2 last paragraph).
Regarding Claim 14, Studer teaches: the plurality of candidate wireless devices are associated with pairwise spatial metrics that meet a spatial pairing threshold: “the wireless system comprises a massive MIMO BS with a uniform linear array (ULA) of B=32 antennas receiving data from N=2048 UE locations. We simulate a narrowband, line-of-sight (LoS) channel at a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of 0 dB. As will be described in more detail below, an example channel chart generated in such a system uses pairs of transmitters, with each pair being associated with a pairwise spatial distance and a pairwise feature dissimilarity. The channel features are designed to ensure that the pairwise feature dissimilarity is approximately lowerbounded by the pairwise spatial distance (when divided by a suitable reference distance). Thus, UEs that are far apart in space will have dissimilar channel features” (Studer ¶ 0084).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga with Studer for the purpose of proactively reducing communication rates so as to prevent transmission failure. According to Studer: “The generated proximity map indicates if multiple wireless devices are at a common location, which can be used to guide the adaptation of communication rates for each such user. If a wireless device moves towards the cell boundary, as extracted from the proximity and velocity information, the rate can preventively be reduced even before the device will be in an area of bad reception. This mitigates transmission failures and improves communication reliability” (Studer ¶ 0035).
Claims 5 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2006/0193392), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding Claim 5, Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga teach: The network node of claim 1.
Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga do not teach: the channel variation coefficient indicates a rate of change in a communication channel state.
Regarding Claim 5, Kim teaches: the channel variation coefficient indicates a rate of change in a communication channel state: “An absolute value of the channel coefficient variation rate indicates a gain change of a channel and RF down-converter and a phase angle of the channel coefficient variation rate indicates a residual frequency offset. The channel coefficient variation rate is 1.0 when there is no channel variation. The average detectors AVG obtain an average of the channel coefficient variation rate when a plurality of pilot signals are transmitted in a transmission end, thereby accurately estimating a channel coefficient variation” (Kim ¶ 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed application to combine the disclosure of Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga Kim for the purpose of compensating for frequency offset and channel variation. According to Kim: “The present invention provides an apparatus for and a method of compensating for a frequency offset and a channel variation, which are suitable for an MIMO communication system, and an MIMO-OFDM receiver” (Kim ¶ 0018).
Regarding Claim 16, Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga teach: The method of claim 12.
Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga do not teach: the channel variation coefficient indicates a rate of change in a communication channel state.
Regarding Claim 16, Kim teaches: the channel variation coefficient indicates a rate of change in a communication channel state: “An absolute value of the channel coefficient variation rate indicates a gain change of a channel and RF down-converter and a phase angle of the channel coefficient variation rate indicates a residual frequency offset. The channel coefficient variation rate is 1.0 when there is no channel variation. The average detectors AVG obtain an average of the channel coefficient variation rate when a plurality of pilot signals are transmitted in a transmission end, thereby accurately estimating a channel coefficient variation” (Kim ¶ 0061).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed application to combine the disclosure of Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga with Kim for the purpose of compensating for frequency offset and channel variation. According to Kim: “The present invention provides an apparatus for and a method of compensating for a frequency offset and a channel variation, which are suitable for an MIMO communication system, and an MIMO-OFDM receiver” (Kim ¶ 0018).
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Sen et al. (2017/0127377), hereinafter Sen.
Regarding Claim 6, Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga teach: The network node of claim 1.
Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga do not teach: the processing circuitry is configured to determine the ICC based at least on mobility estimates of the plurality of candidate wireless devices.
Regarding Claim 6, Sen teaches: the processing circuitry is configured to determine the ICC based at least on mobility estimates of the plurality of candidate wireless devices: “During movement of the mobile device 108, the wireless protocol selection module 152 may limit the length of past history that a wireless protocol may refer to based on the intensity of movement of the mobile device 108 (and/or the wireless AP 110). For example, if the mobile device 108 is under macro-mobility 138 and is moving towards the wireless AP 110 (e.g., based on increase or decrease in the ToF 142), quality of the wireless channel 106 is likely to improve, and hence a more aggressive transmission bit-rate control (e.g., a transmission bit-rate control that provides for transmission of a higher number of bits for a given time duration) may be employed” (Sen ¶ 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga with Sen for the purpose of obtaining higher throughput when able due to changes in the UE mobility. According to Sen: “mechanisms to obtain higher throughput, for example, in 802.11n/ac WLANs, such as frame aggregation, beam-forming, and multi-user MIMO (MU-MIMO), typically utilize different optimizations based on the intensity of mobility of the mobile device 108. In this regard, the wireless protocol selection module 152 may similarly select an appropriate wireless protocol for the wireless channel 106 based on whether the mobile device 108 is in the static state 132 relative to the wireless AP 110, under environmental mobility 134, under micro-mobility 136, or under macro-mobility 138 relative to the wireless AP 110” (Sen ¶ 0043).
Regarding Claim 17, Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga teach: The method of claim 12.
Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga do not teach: determining the ICC based at least on mobility estimates of the plurality of candidate wireless devices.
Regarding Claim 17, Sen teaches: determining the ICC based at least on mobility estimates of the plurality of candidate wireless devices: “During movement of the mobile device 108, the wireless protocol selection module 152 may limit the length of past history that a wireless protocol may refer to based on the intensity of movement of the mobile device 108 (and/or the wireless AP 110). For example, if the mobile device 108 is under macro-mobility 138 and is moving towards the wireless AP 110 (e.g., based on increase or decrease in the ToF 142), quality of the wireless channel 106 is likely to improve, and hence a more aggressive transmission bit-rate control (e.g., a transmission bit-rate control that provides for transmission of a higher number of bits for a given time duration) may be employed” (Sen ¶ 0042).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga with Sen for the purpose of obtaining higher throughput when able due to changes in the UE mobility. According to Sen: “mechanisms to obtain higher throughput, for example, in 802.11n/ac WLANs, such as frame aggregation, beam-forming, and multi-user MIMO (MU-MIMO), typically utilize different optimizations based on the intensity of mobility of the mobile device 108. In this regard, the wireless protocol selection module 152 may similarly select an appropriate wireless protocol for the wireless channel 106 based on whether the mobile device 108 is in the static state 132 relative to the wireless AP 110, under environmental mobility 134, under micro-mobility 136, or under macro-mobility 138 relative to the wireless AP 110” (Sen ¶ 0043).
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Ferrante, Marupaduga, and Sen as applied to claims 6 and 18 above, and further in view of Ki et al. (US 2010/0158089), hereinafter Ki.
Regarding Claim 7, Liu, Ferrante, Marupaduga, and Sen teach: The network node of claim 6.
Liu, Ferrante, Marupaduga, and Sen do not teach: the mobility estimates are based on temporal filtering of a correlation coefficient between channel estimates at successive channel estimation instants.
Regarding Claim 7, Ki teaches: the mobility estimates are based on temporal filtering of a correlation coefficient between channel estimates at successive channel estimation instants: “The Doppler estimator 416 calculates the time correlation of the multi-tap channel, estimates the mobility of the mobile terminal based on the time correlation to generate the filter coefficients of the individual subchannel estimators of the multi-tap subchannel estimator and the parameter for determining the convergence speed of the equalizer, and outputs the parameter to the multi-tap subchannel estimator” (Ki ¶ 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed application to combine the disclosure of Liu, Ferrante, Marupaduga, and Sen with Ki for the purpose of compensating for frequency offset and channel variation. According to Ki: “The present invention provides an apparatus for and a method of compensating for a frequency offset and a channel variation, which are suitable for an MIMO communication system, and an MIMO-OFDM receiver” (Kim ¶ 0018).
Regarding Claim 18, Liu, Ferrante, Marupaduga, and Sen teach: The method of claim 17.
Liu, Ferrante, Marupaduga, and Sen do not teach: the mobility estimates are based on temporal filtering of a correlation coefficient between channel estimates at successive channel estimation instants.
Regarding Claim 18, Ki teaches: the mobility estimates are based on temporal filtering of a correlation coefficient between channel estimates at successive channel estimation instants: “The Doppler estimator 416 calculates the time correlation of the multi-tap channel, estimates the mobility of the mobile terminal based on the time correlation to generate the filter coefficients of the individual subchannel estimators of the multi-tap subchannel estimator and the parameter for determining the convergence speed of the equalizer, and outputs the parameter to the multi-tap subchannel estimator” (Ki ¶ 0060).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed application to combine the disclosure of Liu, Ferrante, Marupaduga, and Sen with Ki for the purpose of compensating for frequency offset and channel variation. According to Ki: “The present invention provides an apparatus for and a method of compensating for a frequency offset and a channel variation, which are suitable for an MIMO communication system, and an MIMO-OFDM receiver” (Kim ¶ 0018).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Goutay et al. (US 2021/0367654), hereinafter Goutay.
Regarding Claim 8, Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga teach: The network node of claim 1.
Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga do not teach: wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the ICC based at least on respective signal to noise ratio, SNR, of the plurality of candidate wireless devices.
Regarding Claim 8, Goutay teaches: wherein the processing circuitry is configured to determine the ICC based at least on respective signal to noise ratio, SNR, of the plurality of candidate wireless devices: “disclosed technique uses a function with the one or more trainable parameters θ, e.g., a neural network (NN), which takes as input indications about the channel quality, e.g., the SNR, and provides as output the locations of constellation points in the complex plane. The function is optimized using stochastic gradient descent (SGD) to maximize the information rate” (Goutay ¶ 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga with Goutay for the purpose of optimizing the signal shape for MU-MIMO communications. According to Goutay: “the optimization of signal shaping has never been considered for the MU-MIMO communication systems. Therefore, there is a need for an improved method and apparatus to optimize the signal shaping for the MU-MIMO communication system, in order to maximize the information rate” (Goutay ¶ 0006).
Regarding Claim 19, Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga teach: The method of claim 12.
Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga do not teach: determining the ICC based at least on respective signal to noise ratio, SNR, of the plurality of candidate wireless devices.
Regarding Claim 19, Goutay teaches: determining the ICC based at least on respective signal to noise ratio, SNR, of the plurality of candidate wireless devices: “disclosed technique uses a function with the one or more trainable parameters θ, e.g., a neural network (NN), which takes as input indications about the channel quality, e.g., the SNR, and provides as output the locations of constellation points in the complex plane. The function is optimized using stochastic gradient descent (SGD) to maximize the information rate” (Goutay ¶ 0035).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the disclosure of Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga with Goutay for the purpose of optimizing the signal shape for MU-MIMO communications. According to Goutay: “the optimization of signal shaping has never been considered for the MU-MIMO communication systems. Therefore, there is a need for an improved method and apparatus to optimize the signal shaping for the MU-MIMO communication system, in order to maximize the information rate” (Goutay ¶ 0006).
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Minotani et al. (US 2022/0303030), hereinafter Minotani.
Regarding Claim 9, Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga teach: The network node of claim 1.
Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga do not teach: the processing circuitry is configured to determine the ICC based at least on inter-wireless device interference among the plurality of candidate wireless devices.
Regarding Claim 9, Minotani teaches: the processing circuitry is configured to determine the ICC based at least on inter-wireless device interference among the plurality of candidate wireless devices: “In DL communication (e.g., transmission and reception of DL data), for example, AP 300 (or also referred to as a “downlink radio transmitter”) may perform DL MU-MIMO transmission to the plurality of STAs 400 (or also referred to as “downlink radio receivers”). Each of STAs 400 may, for example, generate feedback information based on a signal transmitted by the DL MU-MIMO (e.g,, DL MU PPDU), and transmit the feedback information to AP 300 (e,g., UL SU transmission or UL, MU transmission). In the present embodiment, STA 400 feeds back, to AP 300, a channel coefficient on a spatial stream of a single or some inter-user interference signals based on reception quality of a reference signal (e.g., LTF) included in a non-NDP MU PPDU. The channel coefficient is, for example, a component of a channel estimation matrix represented by N.sub.RX×N.sub.ss. In addition, the channel coefficient is, for example, part of a subcarrier represented by N.sub.s. Note that Ns indicates the number of subcarriers allocated to STA 400” (Minotani ¶ 0217-0218).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed application to combine the disclosure of Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga with Minotani for the purpose of improving spectrum efficiency. According to Minotani: “Discussions have been proceeding for 11be on the increase, from 11ax, in the maximum number of spatial streams (SSs), e.g., also referred to as the number of spatial multiplexing, in downlink (DL) multi-user multiple-input multiple output (MU-MIMO), for example. The increase in the maximum number of spatial streams improves spectrum efficiency” (Minotani ¶ 0003).
Regarding Claim 20, Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga teach: The method of claim 12.
Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga do not teach: the processing circuitry is configured to determine the ICC based at least on inter-wireless device interference among the plurality of candidate wireless devices.
Regarding Claim 20, Minotani teaches: the processing circuitry is configured to determine the ICC based at least on inter-wireless device interference among the plurality of candidate wireless devices: “In DL communication (e.g., transmission and reception of DL data), for example, AP 300 (or also referred to as a “downlink radio transmitter”) may perform DL MU-MIMO transmission to the plurality of STAs 400 (or also referred to as “downlink radio receivers”). Each of STAs 400 may, for example, generate feedback information based on a signal transmitted by the DL MU-MIMO (e.g,, DL MU PPDU), and transmit the feedback information to AP 300 (e,g., UL SU transmission or UL, MU transmission). In the present embodiment, STA 400 feeds back, to AP 300, a channel coefficient on a spatial stream of a single or some inter-user interference signals based on reception quality of a reference signal (e.g., LTF) included in a non-NDP MU PPDU. The channel coefficient is, for example, a component of a channel estimation matrix represented by N.sub.RX×N.sub.ss. In addition, the channel coefficient is, for example, part of a subcarrier represented by N.sub.s. Note that Ns indicates the number of subcarriers allocated to STA 400” (Minotani ¶ 0217-0218).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed application to combine the disclosure of Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga with Minotani for the purpose of improving spectrum efficiency. According to Minotani: “Discussions have been proceeding for 11be on the increase, from 11ax, in the maximum number of spatial streams (SSs), e.g., also referred to as the number of spatial multiplexing, in downlink (DL) multi-user multiple-input multiple output (MU-MIMO), for example. The increase in the maximum number of spatial streams improves spectrum efficiency” (Minotani ¶ 0003).
Claims 10 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga as applied to claims 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Zou et al. (US 2018/0337709), hereinafter Zou.
Regarding Claim 10, Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga teach: The network node of claim 1.
Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga do not teach: the processing circuitry is configured to: determine a total ICC for a first group of the plurality of candidate wireless devices; modify the first group by logically adding a first wireless device of the plurality of candidate wireless devices to the first group; determine the total ICC for the modified first group; add the first wireless device to the subset of the plurality of candidate wireless devices based on the total ICC of the modified first group being greater than the total ICC of the first group; and remove the first wireless device from the modified first group of the plurality of candidate wireless devices based on the total ICC of the modified first group being less than the total ICC of the first group.
Regarding Claim 10, Zou teaches: the processing circuitry is configured to: determine a total ICC for a first group of the plurality of candidate wireless devices; modify the first group by logically adding a first wireless device of the plurality of candidate wireless devices to the first group; determine the total ICC for the modified first group; add the first wireless device to the subset of the plurality of candidate wireless devices based on the total ICC of the modified first group being greater than the total ICC of the first group; and remove the first wireless device from the modified first group of the plurality of candidate wireless devices based on the total ICC of the modified first group being less than the total ICC of the first group: “In a typical MU-MIMO grouping operation, an AP needs to iterate through all possible MU-MIMO group sizes and selects the sizes and group members (e.g., STAs) that would result in a best throughput score. The best throughput score generally refers to a predicted data throughput, sometimes referred to as goodput” (Zou ¶ 0023); or in other words during the normal process of iterating through all possible MIMO group throughput (or ICC) scores, the AP will add the candidate wireless device to a MIMO group, then test the ICC score, then either discard that particular combination (remove that wireless device) or keep that combination (add the wireless device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed application to combine the disclosure of Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga with Zou for the purpose of having more efficient probing operations to further improve MIMO. According to Zou: “Accordingly, it is desirable to have more efficient probing operations that reduce the probing overhead and still allow the collection of accurate information to perform effective scheduling of MU-MIMO groups for MU-MIMO communications in WLANs” (Zou ¶ 0005).
Regarding Claim 21, Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga teach: The method of claim 12.
Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga do not teach: determining a total ICC for a first group of the plurality of candidate wireless devices; modifying the first group by logically adding a first wireless device of the plurality of candidate wireless devices to the first group; determining the total ICC for the modified first group; adding the first wireless device to the subset of the plurality of candidate wireless devices based on the total ICC of the modified first group being greater than the total ICC of the first group; and removing the first wireless device from the modified first group of the plurality of candidate wireless devices based on the total ICC of the modified first group being less than the total ICC of the first group.
Regarding Claim 21, Zou teaches: determining a total ICC for a first group of the plurality of candidate wireless devices; modifying the first group by logically adding a first wireless device of the plurality of candidate wireless devices to the first group; determining the total ICC for the modified first group; adding the first wireless device to the subset of the plurality of candidate wireless devices based on the total ICC of the modified first group being greater than the total ICC of the first group; and removing the first wireless device from the modified first group of the plurality of candidate wireless devices based on the total ICC of the modified first group being less than the total ICC of the first group: “In a typical MU-MIMO grouping operation, an AP needs to iterate through all possible MU-MIMO group sizes and selects the sizes and group members (e.g., STAs) that would result in a best throughput score. The best throughput score generally refers to a predicted data throughput, sometimes referred to as goodput” (Zou ¶ 0023); or in other words during the normal process of iterating through all possible MIMO group throughput (or ICC) scores, the AP will add the candidate wireless device to a MIMO group, then test the ICC score, then either discard that particular combination (remove that wireless device) or keep that combination (add the wireless device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed application to combine the disclosure of Liu, Ferrante, and Marupaduga with Zou for the purpose of having more efficient probing operations to further improve MIMO. According to Zou: “Accordingly, it is desirable to have more efficient probing operations that reduce the probing overhead and still allow the collection of accurate information to perform effective scheduling of MU-MIMO groups for MU-MIMO communications in WLANs” (Zou ¶ 0005).
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRADLEY DAVIS LYTLE whose telephone number is (703)756-4593. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM - 4:00 PM 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, Kwang bin Yao can be reached at 571-272-3182. 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.
/B.D.L./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/BRADLEY D LYTLE JR./Examiner, Art Unit 2473
/JUTAI KAO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2473