DETAILED ACTION
This communication is responsive to Application #18262601 filed 07/24/2023. Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 7-11, 13, 16-18, and 20 amended; No claim(s) canceled. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are subject to examination.
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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. The omitted elements are: transmitting, by the transmitter the precoded data using the communication channels. Claims 2-17 and 19-20 are rejected to as being, respectively, dependent on claim 1 and 18.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the diagonal element" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the purpose of examination, the examiner will interpret “the diagonal element” as any diagonal element. Claims 5-8 are rejected to as being dependent on claim 4.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 9, 17, and 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by GROSSMAN et al. (US 20240313842 A1), hereby referred to as GROSSMAN.
Claim 1:
GROSSMAN teaches a method of processing data for transmission over a communication system comprising: a transmitter comprising a plurality of transmitter antennas; and a plurality of receiver antennas, each of the plurality of receiver antennas connected to the transmitter via a respective communication channel (GROSSMAN: FIG. 1 and para 113 (“The UE 500 further comprises an antenna system 560 which includes antenna circuitry for transmitting the receiving signals to/from at least a radio network node or gNB.”) the transmitters and receivers connected via respective communication channels), the method comprising: precoding the data prior to transmission to generate precoded data (GROSSMAN: FIG. 4 item 401 (“Decomposing each entry corresponding to a…precoder matrix…into at least two coefficients.”) wherein data is precoded for transmission), wherein precoding the data comprises precoding the data to reduce an amplitude of a data element of the data, for receipt by a receiver antenna of the plurality of receiver antennas, to a predefined numerical value, so as to reduce an amplitude of the precoded data received at the receiver antenna (GROSSMAN: FIG. 2 and FIG. 3; and para 83 (“…each amplitude value may be represented by…a=0…b=1…”) wherein precoding causes some amplitudes to be reduced, for example to 0).
Claim 2:
GROSSMAN teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the predefined numerical value is zero (GROSSMAN: FIG. 3 and para 83-84 (“…each amplitude value may be represented by…”a=0” and “b=1”…”) wherein a predefined numerical value is zero).
Claim 3:
GROSSMAN teaches the method according to claim 2, wherein precoding the data to reduce the amplitude of the data element to zero reduces the amplitude of the precoded data received at the receiver antenna to zero (GROSSMAN: FIG. 3 and para 83-84 (“…each amplitude value may be represented by…”a=0” and “b-1”…”) wherein an amplitude is reduced to zero so that is received as zero).
Claim 9:
GROSSMAN teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the data comprises a plurality of multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) signals (GROSSMAN:FIG. 2-3 and para 30-33 wherein the processed data is a plurality of signals in MIMO).
Claim 17:
GROSSMAN teaches the method according to claim 1, further comprising transmitting, by the transmitter, the precoded data using communication channels (GROSSMAN: para 3 (“…to establish and adapt communication links using spatially precoded pilot signals…”) wherein precoded data/signals are transmitted).
Claim 18:
GROSSMAN teaches the A system for processing data for transmission over a communication system comprising a transmitter comprising a plurality of transmitter antennas and a plurality of receiver antennas, each of the plurality of receiver antennas connected to the transmitter via a respective communication channel (GROSSMAN: FIG. 1 and para 113 (“The UE 500 further comprises an antenna system 560 which includes antenna circuitry for transmitting the receiving signals to/from at least a radio network node or gNB.”) the transmitters and receivers connected via respective communication channels), the system comprising: a precoder adapted to precode the data prior to transmission to generate precoded data (GROSSMAN: Equation 1 where data is precoded using a precoder matrix), wherein precoding the data comprises precoding the data to reduce an amplitude of a data element of the data, for receipt by a receiver antenna of the plurality of receiver antennas, to a predefined numerical value, so as to reduce an amplitude of the precoded data received at the receiver antenna (GROSSMAN: FIG. 2 and FIG. 3; and para 83 (“…each amplitude value may be represented by…a=0…b=1…”) wherein precoding causes some amplitudes to be reduced, for example to 0).
Claim 19:
GROSSMAN teaches the system according to claim 18. For further limitations, see rejection for claim 2 above.
Claim 20:
GROSSMAN teaches a communication network comprising the system according to claim 18. See rejection for claim 18 above.
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.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 13, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GROSSMAN in view of NAM et al. (EP 2819313 A1) (see IDS 07/24/2023), hereby referred to as NAM.
Claim 4:
GROSSMAN teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein reducing the amplitude of the data element comprises processing the data using a diagonal matrix, each of at least one other diagonal element of the diagonal matrix corresponding to a respective one of a plurality of data elements of the data, the plurality of data elements comprising the data element ((GROSSMAN: para 6 (“…Fa is a diagonal matrix containing 2L wideband amplitudes associated with the 2 L spatial beams…”) wherein the diagonal elements correspond to a plurality of data elements), but does not explicitly disclose, the diagonal element corresponding to the data element having the predefined numerical value.
NAM, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the diagonal element corresponding to the data element having the predefined numerical value (NAM: pg 5 Equation 2 and para 41-48; pg 6 equation 4 and Equation 5wherein the diagonal matrix have pre-defined diagonal elements which correspond to the data elements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified GROSSMAN with NAM, the combination hereby referred to as GROSSMAN-NAM, for the benefit of an adaptive codebook for better performance (NAM: para 26) and reduce interference in MU-MIMO scheduling (NAM: para 64).
Claim 7:
GROSSMAN-NAM teaches the method according to claim 4, wherein reducing the amplitude of the data element comprises a matrix multiplication of the data, x, by a precoder matrix, P, which depends on the diagonal matrix (NAM: pg 5 Equation 2 wherein d is the data and P is the precoder; pg 5 para 43 (“P is a precoding matrix based on channel information H=HB…”) and pg 6 Equation 4 wherein the precoder is based on diagonal matrix HB).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified GROSSMAN with NAM, the combination hereby referred to as GROSSMAN-NAM, for the benefit of an adaptive codebook for better performance (NAM: para 26) and reduce interference in MU-MIMO scheduling (NAM: para 64).
Claim 13:
GROSSMAN teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising identifying the receiver antenna based on channel state information associated with the communication channels.
NAM, in the same field of endeavor, discloses further comprising identifying the receiver antenna based on channel state information associated with the communication channels (NAM: pg 2 para 7 (“…scheduling the pieces of UE on the basis of the instantaneous channel information…”) wherein pieces/antennas of the UE are identified based on channel station information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified GROSSMAN with NAM, the combination hereby referred to as GROSSMAN-NAM, for the benefit of an adaptive codebook for better performance (NAM: para 26) and reduce interference in MU-MIMO scheduling (NAM: para 64).
Claim 16:
GROSSMAN-NAM teaches the method according to claim 13, further comprising iteratively identifying respective receiver antennas for which an amplitude of a corresponding data element of the data, for receipt by the respective receiver antenna, is to be reduced to the predefined numerical value, based on the channel state information (GROSSMAN: FIG. 4 item 401 (“Decomposing each entry corresponding to a…precoder matrix…into at least two coefficients.”) and FIG. 2 and FIG. 3 wherein precoding causes some amplitudes to be reduced, for example to 0) (NAM: pg 8 para 81-83 (“The base station can receive feedback of instantaneous channel information measured from CSI-RS signals…instantaneous channel information may include…dominant eigenvector matrices…adaptive codebook indices, fixed codebook indices…SU-CQI…MU-CQI…”) wherein each piece/receiver antenna is identified based on channel state information).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified GROSSMAN with NAM, the combination hereby referred to as GROSSMAN-NAM, for the benefit of an adaptive codebook for better performance (NAM: para 26) and reduce interference in MU-MIMO scheduling (NAM: para 64).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GROSSMAN in view of CHO et al. (US 20170244467 A1), hereby referred to as CHO.
Claim 10:
GROSSMAN teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the receiver antenna is a first receiver antenna, the plurality of receiver antennas comprises a second receiver antenna (GROSSMAN: FIG. 1 and para 113 (“The UE 500 further comprises an antenna system 560 which includes antenna circuitry for transmitting the receiving signals to/from at least a radio network node or gNB.”) wherein the plurality of receiver antennas include a second receiver antenna), but does not explicitly disclose precoding the data comprises precoding the data based on a priority ranking of the first receiver antenna relative to the second receiver antenna, the priority ranking indicating that the first receiver antenna has a lower priority than the second receiver antenna.
CHO, in the same field of endeavor, teaches precoding the data comprises precoding the data based on a priority ranking of the first receiver antenna relative to the second receiver antenna, the priority ranking indicating that the first receiver antenna has a lower priority than the second receiver antenna (CHO: para 102 (“select an antenna group…among the plurality of antenna groups…by comparing at least one of channel gains, rank values, and condition numbers of channel matrices…according to an order of priorities…may assign a weight to…a condition numbers of criterion for selection an antenna group…according to the order of priorities, and select an antenna group on the basis of a weighted sum…) wherein antennas can be ranked in a way that one antenna has a lower priority than another antenna).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified GROSSMAN with CHO for the benefit of allocating resources in MIMO environment (CHO: para 2-6).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GROSSMAN in view of KIM et al. (US 20170195100 A1), hereby referred to as KIM.
Claim 11:
GROSSMAN teaches the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose further comprising identifying the receiver antenna based on an activity level of the receiver antenna.
KIM, in the same field of endeavor, teaches further comprising identifying the receiver antenna based on an activity level of the receiver antenna (KIM: para 176-177 (“…BS may indicate which antenna port group in a certain CSI-RS configuration is activated or deactivated…The UE may exclude the antenna port group deactivated by…the command…”) wherein antennas are identified to be active or inactive).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified GROSSMAN with KIM for the benefit of reduced overhead (KIM: para 175).
Claim 12:
GROSSMAN teaches the method according to claim 11, wherein identifying the receiver antenna comprises identifying that the activity level of the receiver antenna satisfies an inactivity condition indicative of relative inactivity.
KIM, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein identifying the receiver antenna comprises identifying that the activity level of the receiver antenna satisfies an inactivity condition indicative of relative inactivity (KIM: para 176-177 (“…BS may indicate which antenna port group in a certain CSI-RS configuration is activated or deactivated…The UE may exclude the antenna port group deactivated by…the command…”) wherein antennas can be identified as having met the deactivated condition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified GROSSMAN with KIM for the benefit of reduced overhead (KIM: para 175).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GROSSMAN in view of NAM, and in further view of SAYANA et al. (US 20130114656 A1), hereby referred to as SAYANA
Claim 14:
GROSSMAN-NAM teaches the method according to claim 13, but does not explicitly disclose wherein identifying the receiver antenna based on the channel state information comprises: using the channel state information to rank the plurality of receiver antennas; and identifying the receiver antenna based on a rank of the receiver antenna.
SAYANA, in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein identifying the receiver antenna based on the channel state information comprises: using the channel state information to rank the plurality of receiver antennas (SAYANA: FIG. 11 item 1106 (“Determine a first set of transmission parameters corresponding to a first set of antenna ports corresponding to a first CSI reference signal configuration wherein first set of transmission parameters includes a first transmission rank.”) and item 1108 (“Determining a second set of transmission parameters corresponding to a second set of antenna ports corresponding to a second CSI reference signal configuration wherein second set of transmission parameters includes a second transmission rank.”) wherein antennas are ranked using CSI); and identifying the receiver antenna based on a rank of the receiver antenna (SAYANA: para 28 (“…a first set of antenna ports…a first transmission rank…a second set of antenna ports…second transmission rank…”) wherein antennas are identified by rank).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have modified GROSSMAN-NAM with SAYANA for the benefit of improving MIMO transmissions (SAYANA: para 10-11).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5, 8, and 15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Similarly, claim 6 is objected to as being dependent on claim
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
ZHENG et al. (US 20220271803 A1)
CLERCKX et al. (US 20080186212 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGELIE T NGO whose telephone number is (571)272-0180. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Thur: 8am - 5pm; 2nd Fri: 8am - 3pm.
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, Noel Beharry can be reached at (571) 270-5630. 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.
/A.T.N./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/NOEL R BEHARRY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2416