DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Amendment filed 5/8/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1, 8, and 15 have been amended.
Claims 2, 13, and 19 have been previously cancelled.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-18, 20, and 22-24 remain pending.
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.
Claims 1, 3-12, 14-18, 20, 23, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yijie Mao et al. (“Rate-Splitting Multiple Access: Fundamentals, Survey, and Future Research Trends”, ARXIV.org, Cornell University Library, 201 Olin Library Ithaca, NY 17853, 30 September 2022, XP091330505, DOI: 10.1109/COMST.2022.3191937), hereafter “Mao”, in view of Zewail et al. (US20240178933A1), hereafter Zewail.
Regarding claims 1 and 7,
Mao discloses a method comprising determining, by a device/base station serving a quantity of user devices that is greater than a quantity of antennas of the base station (Section III. B. RSMA in multi-antenna networks; Fig. 7-11, 13, 15(b)), whether to utilize perfect channel state information at transmitter (CSIT) or imperfect CSIT (Section IV; Fig. 17; perfect vs imperfect CSIT) based on one or more of a channel estimation error, finite-length CSI feedback, a user device mobility, a latency, or a pilot contamination associated with the device (Pg. 20, Table VII, consideration of KPIs including mobility and latency in utilizing imperfect CSIT, and only latency in utilizing perfect CSIT; Pg. 21-22 under “imperfect CSIT” discussing optimization of bounded CSIT error).
Mao further shows calculating, by the device and based on determining to utilize the perfect CSIT, a first power allocation, a first rate allocation, and a first precoder allocation for a private stream of a user device, determining, by the device, first parameters or second parameters for the first power allocation, the first rate allocation, and the first precoder allocation (Section IV; Fig. 17-18; Table VII; pg. 20-21 describes power/rate/precoder calculations, allocations, and signal generation under perfect CSIT for 1-layer/multi-layer, linear/non-linear, and various KPIs); calculating, based on determining to utilize the imperfect CSIT, a second power allocation, a second rate allocation, and a second precoder allocation for the private stream of the user device; and determining third parameters or fourth parameters for the second power allocation, the second rate allocation, and the second precoder allocation (Section IV; Fig. 17-18; Table VII; pg. 20-24 describes power/rate/precoder calculations, allocations, and signal generation under imperfect CSIT for single-/multi-carrier, 1-layer/multi-layer, linear/non-linear, and various KPIs when perfect CSIT is not available), and generating, by the device, either a first or second transmit signal and a first or second data allocation based on the first or second power allocation, the first or second rate allocation, the first/second precoder allocation, and the first/second or third/fourth parameters and providing, by the device, the first transmit signal, with the first data allocation, to the user device via the private stream (Fig. 18; both common and private streams).
Mao at least suggests utilizing perfect CSIT over imperfect CSIT would be preferably for reducing bounded CSIT error (Pg. 21-22 under “imperfect CSIT” discussing optimization of bounded CSIT error) but does not expressly disclose when to utilize perfect CSIT or imperfect CSIT.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to utilize perfect CSIT, if available, and to utilize imperfect CSIT when perfect CSIT is not available, as at least suggested in Mao in discussing bounding CSIT error when utilizing imperfect CSIT, thereby enabling optimization of maximizing minimum rates among users and minimizing sum-power consumption without uncertainty of CSIT error when perfect CSIT is available to be utilized.
Mao also discloses both common and private streams, as noted above, but does not expressly disclose calculating allocations for private streams while providing a common stream to the user device and another user device associated with the device.
Zewail discloses analogous art (Title: Rate Matching and CSI Configurations for Rate-Splitting MU-MIMO Communications) including calculating allocations for private streams while providing a common stream to the user device and another user device associated with the device (Fig. 4, 5, 8; paragraphs 35-45, 99-111, 130-137, 149-155; messages of individual users split into common and private parts with respective codewords; jointly decode common and private messages). Zewail further discloses assuming perfect channel estimation is utilized, when available, for successful decoding of rate-splitting MIMO communication via private stream (paragraph 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Mao by calculating allocations for private streams while providing a common stream to the user device and another user device associated with the device, as shown by Zewail, thereby enabling co-scheduled UEs to be configured with the same rate matching pattern and CSI configuration to decode both common and private streams.
Regarding claim 8,
Mao discloses a device comprising one or more memories and one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories (Fig. 14; RSMA-enabled central processor inherently executing instructions/software programs from memory) configured to determine whether to utilize perfect channel state information at transmitter (CSIT) or imperfect CSIT (Section IV; Fig. 17; perfect vs imperfect CSIT) based on one or more of a channel estimation error, finite-length CSI feedback, a user device mobility, a latency, or a pilot contamination associated with the device (Pg. 20, Table VII, consideration of KPIs including mobility and latency in utilizing imperfect CSIT, and only latency in utilizing perfect CSIT; Pg. 21-22 under “imperfect CSIT” discussing optimization of bounded CSIT error).
Mao further shows calculating, by the device and based on determining to utilize the perfect CSIT, a first power allocation, a first rate allocation, and a first precoder allocation for a private stream of a user device, determining, by the device, first parameters or second parameters for the first power allocation, the first rate allocation, and the first precoder allocation (Section IV; Fig. 17-18; Table VII; pg. 20-21 describes power/rate/precoder calculations, allocations, and signal generation under perfect CSIT for 1-layer/multi-layer, linear/non-linear, and various KPIs); calculating, based on determining to utilize the imperfect CSIT, a second power allocation, a second rate allocation, and a second precoder allocation for the private stream of the user device; and determining third parameters or fourth parameters for the second power allocation, the second rate allocation, and the second precoder allocation (Section IV; Fig. 17-18; Table VII; pg. 20-24 describes power/rate/precoder calculations, allocations, and signal generation under imperfect CSIT for single-/multi-carrier, 1-layer/multi-layer, linear/non-linear, and various KPIs when perfect CSIT is not available), and generating, by the device, either a first or second transmit signal and a first or second data allocation based on the first or second power allocation, the first or second rate allocation, the first/second precoder allocation, and the first/second or third/fourth parameters and providing, by the device, the first transmit signal, with the first data allocation, to the user device via the private stream (Fig. 18; both common and private streams), wherein the device is a base station serving a quantity of user devices that is greater than a quantity of antennas of the base station (Section III. B. RSMA in multi-antenna networks; Fig. 7-11, 13, 15(b)).
Mao at least suggests utilizing perfect CSIT over imperfect CSIT would be preferably for reducing bounded CSIT error (Pg. 21-22 under “imperfect CSIT” discussing optimization of bounded CSIT error) but does not expressly disclose when to utilize perfect CSIT or imperfect CSIT.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to utilize perfect CSIT, if available, and to utilize imperfect CSIT when perfect CSIT is not available, as at least suggested in Mao in discussing bounding CSIT error when utilizing imperfect CSIT, thereby enabling optimization of maximizing minimum rates among users and minimizing sum-power consumption without uncertainty of CSIT error when perfect CSIT is available to be utilized.
Mao also discloses both common and private streams, as noted above, but does not expressly disclose calculating allocations for private streams while providing a common stream to the user device and another user device associated with the device.
Zewail discloses analogous art (Title: Rate Matching and CSI Configurations for Rate-Splitting MU-MIMO Communications) including calculating allocations for private streams while providing a common stream to the user device and another user device associated with the device (Fig. 4, 5, 8; paragraphs 35-45, 99-111, 130-137, 149-155; messages of individual users split into common and private parts with respective codewords; jointly decode common and private messages). Zewail further discloses assuming perfect channel estimation is utilized, when available, for successful decoding of rate-splitting MIMO communication via private stream (paragraph 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Mao by calculating allocations for private streams while providing a common stream to the user device and another user device associated with the device, as shown by Zewail, thereby enabling co-scheduled UEs to be configured with the same rate matching pattern and CSI configuration to decode both common and private streams.
Regarding claim 15,
Mao discloses a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions, the set of instructions comprising one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a device (Fig. 14; RSMA-enabled central processor inherently executing instructions/software programs) cause the device to determine whether to utilize perfect channel state information at transmitter (CSIT) or imperfect CSIT (Section IV; Fig. 17; perfect vs imperfect CSIT) based on one or more of a channel estimation error, finite-length CSI feedback, a user device mobility, a latency, or a pilot contamination associated with the device (Pg. 20, Table VII, consideration of KPIs including mobility and latency in utilizing imperfect CSIT, and only latency in utilizing perfect CSIT; Pg. 21-22 under “imperfect CSIT” discussing optimization of bounded CSIT error).
Mao further shows calculating, by the device and based on determining to utilize the perfect CSIT, a first power allocation, a first rate allocation, and a first precoder allocation for a private stream of a user device, determining, by the device, first parameters or second parameters for the first power allocation, the first rate allocation, and the first precoder allocation (Section IV; Fig. 17-18; Table VII; pg. 20-21 describes power/rate/precoder calculations, allocations, and signal generation under perfect CSIT for 1-layer/multi-layer, linear/non-linear, and various KPIs); calculating, based on determining to utilize the imperfect CSIT, a second power allocation, a second rate allocation, and a second precoder allocation for the private stream of the user device; and determining third parameters or fourth parameters for the second power allocation, the second rate allocation, and the second precoder allocation (Section IV; Fig. 17-18; Table VII; pg. 20-24 describes power/rate/precoder calculations, allocations, and signal generation under imperfect CSIT for single-/multi-carrier, 1-layer/multi-layer, linear/non-linear, and various KPIs when perfect CSIT is not available), and generating, by the device, either a first or second transmit signal and a first or second data allocation based on the first or second power allocation, the first or second rate allocation, the first/second precoder allocation, and the first/second or third/fourth parameters and providing, by the device, the first transmit signal, with the first data allocation, to the user device via the private stream (Fig. 18; both common and private streams).
Mao at least suggests utilizing perfect CSIT over imperfect CSIT would be preferably for reducing bounded CSIT error (Pg. 21-22 under “imperfect CSIT” discussing optimization of bounded CSIT error) but does not expressly disclose when to utilize perfect CSIT or imperfect CSIT.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to utilize perfect CSIT, if available, and to utilize imperfect CSIT when perfect CSIT is not available, as at least suggested in Mao in discussing bounding CSIT error when utilizing imperfect CSIT, thereby enabling optimization of maximizing minimum rates among users and minimizing sum-power consumption without uncertainty of CSIT error when perfect CSIT is available to be utilized.
Mao also discloses both common and private streams, as noted above, but does not expressly disclose calculating allocations for private streams while providing a common stream to the user device and another user device associated with the device.
Zewail discloses analogous art (Title: Rate Matching and CSI Configurations for Rate-Splitting MU-MIMO Communications) including calculating allocations for private streams while providing a common stream to the user device and another user device associated with the device (Fig. 4, 5, 8; paragraphs 35-45, 99-111, 130-137, 149-155; messages of individual users split into common and private parts with respective codewords; jointly decode common and private messages). Zewail further discloses assuming perfect channel estimation is utilized, when available, for successful decoding of rate-splitting MIMO communication via private stream (paragraph 108).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Mao by calculating allocations for private streams while providing a common stream to the user device and another user device associated with the device, as shown by Zewail, thereby enabling co-scheduled UEs to be configured with the same rate matching pattern and CSI to decode common and private streams.
Regarding claim 3,
The combination of Mao and Zewail discloses generating either the first or second transmit signal and corresponding data allocation based on the corresponding power allocation, the corresponding rate allocation, the corresponding precoder allocation, and the first/second/third/fourth parameters; and providing either the first or second transmit signal, with the corresponding data allocation, to the user device via the private stream (Section IV; Fig. 17-18; Table VII; pg. 21-24 describes power/rate/precoder calculations, allocations, and signal generation under imperfect CSIT for single-/multi-carrier, 1-layer/multi-layer, linear/non-linear, and various KPIs when perfect CSIT is not available).
Regarding claims 4, 12, and 16,
The combination of Mao and Zewail discloses providing the first transmit signal, with the first data allocation, and the second transmit signal, with the second data allocation, to the user device via the private stream and in accordance with a rate-splitting multiple access framework (Section I. A., II.-IV; Figs. 1(d), 4-6, 13, 14(a)-(b), 16-18; and throughout disclosure; RSMA framework).
Regarding claims 5, 14, and 23,
The combination of Mao and Zewail discloses calculating the second/first power allocation, the second/first rate allocation, and the second/first precoder allocation for the private stream of the user device comprises utilizing a maximum-minimum fairness optimization to calculate the second/first power allocation, the second/first rate allocation, and the second/first precoder allocation for the private stream of the user device and ensure a non-zero ergodic rate for each of the plurality of user devices (Section III. B., pg. 19: max-min fairness; Section IV, pg. 21; pg. 22, left-hand column; maximizing the minimum/non-zero ergodic rate of each user).
Regarding claims 6, 11, 18, and 24,
The combination of Mao and Zewail discloses to determine the first parameters or the second parameters or the third parameters or the fourth/further parameters for the first/second power allocation, the first/second rate allocation, and the first/second precoder allocation, are configured to determine the first/third parameters for the first power allocation, the first rate allocation, and the first precoder allocation based on first settings; or determine the second/fourth parameters for the first power allocation, the first rate allocation, and the first precoder allocation based on different settings corresponding to different operational scenarios of the device (Section IV, pg. 19-23; 1 vs. multi-layer, linear/non-linear, CSIT conditions, various KPIs, single/multi-antenna, single/multi-carrier all map to a broadest reasonable interpretation of “first/second settings” as claimed).
- Regarding claim 9,
The combination of Mao and Zewail discloses the device serves multiple user devices and provides a non-zero ergodic rate for each of the multiple user devices (Fig. 1(d), 4, 7-10, 13, 14(b), 15(b); Section IV, pg. 21; QoS constraint guarantees rate of each user no less than certain threshold pg. 22, left-hand column; maximizing the minimum/non-zero ergodic rate of each user).
Regarding claim 10 and 17,
The combination of Mao and Zewail discloses to determine whether to utilize perfect CSIT or imperfect CSIT based on one or more of channel estimation errors, finite-length CSI feedback, user device mobility, latency, or pilot contamination associated with the device (Table VII; communication-theoretic RSMA for multi-antenna includes KPI consideration of device mobility and latency, bounded/unbounded channel estimation error, etc.).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mao and Zewail as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Li et al. (US20190342769A1), hereafter Li.
Regarding claim 22,
The combination of Mao and Zewail does not expressly disclose removing one or more of third/fourth parameters to limit a quantity of candidate allocations.
Li discloses analogous art including RSMA (Title: Communication Configuration Selection; paragraph 2, RSMA) and removing one or more of third/fourth parameters to limit a quantity of candidate allocations (paragraph 54-57; resource granularity candidates may be a limited set of options based on use cases/services/performance requirements).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Mao and Zewail by removing one or more of third/fourth parameters to limit a quantity of candidate allocations, as shown by Li, thereby enabling optimized resource granularity based on use cases, services supported, and desirable performance requirement considerations.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 12-16 of the Amendment, Applicant contends Mao discusses perfect and imperfect CSIT as separate conceptual and analytical scenarios that does not show operationally determining whether to utilize perfect or imperfect CSIT or basing that determination on one or more of channel estimation error, finite-length CSI feedback, mobility, latency or pilot contamination associated with the device.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As now shown in the rejection as noted in the Interview Summary dated 4/20/2026 for the interview conducted 4/16/2026, Mao clearly shows utilizing perfect and imperfect CSIT at least on the basis of channel estimation error, user device mobility and latency as illustrated in Table VII on Pg. 20 and Pg. 21-22 of Mao discussing optimization of bounded CSIT channel estimation error. Furthermore, as also now shown in the rejection, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to utilize perfect CSIT, if available, and to utilize imperfect CSIT when perfect CSIT is not available, as at least suggested in Mao in discussing bounding CSIT error when utilizing imperfect CSIT, thereby enabling optimization of maximizing minimum rates among users and minimizing sum-power consumption without uncertainty of CSIT error when perfect CSIT is available to be utilized. Further still, paragraph 108 in Zewail at least suggests assuming perfect channel estimation is utilized, when available, for successful decoding of rate-splitting MIMO communication via private stream. Therefore, the rejections based on the combination of Mao and Zewail are properly maintained.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
Prosecution Insights