DETAILED ACTION
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/31/2025 has been entered.
Claims 1, 12, 23, and 27 have been amended; Claims 3, 14, 20, and 30 have been canceled; Claims 31-34 have been added. Claims 1-2, 4-13, 15-19, 21-29, and 31-34 are subject to examination.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 12, 23, and 27 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 § 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 1-2, 7, 10, 12-13, 18, 21, 23-24, and 26-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu et al. (US 2011/0261894 A1, hereinafter “Yu”) in view of Takano (US 2005/0249151 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yu teaches user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories (Yu: Embodiments show ... an example configuration of a wireless communication system that applies a cross-polarized MIMO to a downlink of a cellular wireless communication network and that establishes communication between a base station (BS) and user equipment (UE), see paragraph [0034]);
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: transmit an indication of a preprocessing matrix that the UE applies to a received communication having a plurality of streams, wherein the preprocessing matrix is applied by the UE to the received communication to split the plurality of streams (Yu: in step 302, the receiver estimates a channel response matrix between the plurality of antennas of the transmitter and the plurality of antennas of the receiver ... in step 304 ... the channel response matrix is decomposed into two parts so as to separate the polarized waves into vertically polarized waves and horizontally polarized waves. In step 306 ... two precoding matrices are now selected in response to the vertically polarized wave and the horizontally polarized wave. In step 308, the receiver calculates an additional precoding matrix ... in such a way that precoded channel response matrices for different polarized waves are mutually orthogonalized ... In step 310, the receiver feeds back to the transmitter precoding information that specifies a selected precoding matrix, see paragraphs [0082]-[0083] and Fig. 3); and
receive a communication having precoding applied, the precoding based at least in part on the preprocessing matrix (Yu: In step 312, the transmitter generates and transmits a data stream from signaling assigned to a corresponding downlink including information on the precoding matrix and a transmission rate. Finally, in step 314, the receiver receives the data stream transmitted from the transmitter and detects MIMO, thereby acquiring the data stream to be reproduced, see paragraph [0084] and Fig. 3).
Yu does not explicitly teach the indication comprises a modified reference signal, the modified reference signal being a result of multiplying an uplink reference signal with a transpose of the preprocessing matrix; and
the precoding based at least in part on the modified reference signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Takano teaches the indication comprises a modified reference signal, the modified reference signal being a result of multiplying an uplink reference signal with a transpose of the preprocessing matrix (Takano: in an instance where data communication on the downlink from the other end is performed ... receiving user data transmitted in the forward direction from the other end and weighting the user data with receive weights UH ... and weighting a reference signal with transmit weights in the reverse direction to the other end by using a conjugate matrix U* for U obtained ... as the transmit weights, and transmitting the reference signal, see paragraph [0079]); and
the precoding based at least in part on the modified reference signal (Takano: receiving a reference signal weighted with a conjugate matrix U* for U as uplink transmit weights and acquiring HTU*=V*DUT=V*- D; separating downlink transmit weights V from V*D, based on the unitary matrix properties; and weighting data with the downlink transmit weights V and transmitting the data, see paragraph [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yu to include the features as taught by Takano above in order to remove superfluous calculations at the transmitter (Takano: see paragraph [0078]).
Regarding Claim 2, Yu-Takano teaches the UE of claim 1.
Takano further teaches the indication of the preprocessing matrix comprises an implicit indication (Takano: weighting a reference signal with transmit weights in the reverse direction to the other end by using a conjugate matrix U* for U obtained ... as the transmit weights, and transmitting the reference signal, see paragraph [0079]). *Examiner’s Note: As per specification paragraph [0094], an “implicit indication” is interpreted as “an uplink reference signal that is based at least in part on the preprocessing matrix”.
The rationale and motivation for adding the teaching of Takano is the same as the rationale and motivation for Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7, Yu-Takano teaches the UE of claim 1, wherein the communication comprises multiple streams, and wherein the preprocessing matrix is associated with splitting the multiple streams into groups (Yu: in step 304 ... the channel response matrix is decomposed into two parts so as to separate the polarized waves into vertically polarized waves and horizontally polarized wave, see paragraph [0082] and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 10, Yu-Takano teaches the UE of claim 7, wherein the preprocessing matrix is associated with a first group of the groups, and wherein an additional preprocessing matrix is associated with a second group of the groups (Yu: in step 304 ... the channel response matrix is decomposed into two parts so as to separate the polarized waves into vertically polarized waves and horizontally polarized wave, see paragraph [0082] and Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 12, Yu teaches a network node for wireless communication, comprising: one or more memories (Yu: Embodiments show ... an example configuration of a wireless communication system that applies a cross-polarized MIMO to a downlink of a cellular wireless communication network and that establishes communication between a base station (BS) and user equipment (UE), see paragraph [0034]); and
one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories, configured to: receive an indication of a preprocessing matrix that a user equipment (UE) applies to a received communication having a plurality of streams, wherein the preprocessing matrix is applied by the UE to the received communication to split the plurality of streams (Yu: in step 302, the receiver estimates a channel response matrix between the plurality of antennas of the transmitter and the plurality of antennas of the receiver ... in step 304 ... the channel response matrix is decomposed into two parts so as to separate the polarized waves into vertically polarized waves and horizontally polarized waves. In step 306 ... two precoding matrices are now selected in response to the vertically polarized wave and the horizontally polarized wave. In step 308, the receiver calculates an additional precoding matrix ... in such a way that precoded channel response matrices for different polarized waves are mutually orthogonalized ... In step 310, the receiver feeds back to the transmitter precoding information that specifies a selected precoding matrix, see paragraphs [0082]-[0083] and Fig. 3); and
transmit a communication having precoding applied, the precoding based at least in part on the preprocessing matrix (Yu: In step 312, the transmitter generates and transmits a data stream from signaling assigned to a corresponding downlink including information on the precoding matrix and a transmission rate, see paragraph [0084] and Fig. 3).
Yu does not explicitly teach the indication comprises a modified reference signal, the modified reference signal being a result of multiplying an uplink reference signal with a transpose of the preprocessing matrix; and
the precoding based at least in part on the modified reference signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Takano teaches the indication comprises a modified reference signal, the modified reference signal being a result of multiplying an uplink reference signal with a transpose of the preprocessing matrix (Takano: in an instance where data communication on the downlink from the other end is performed ... receiving user data transmitted in the forward direction from the other end and weighting the user data with receive weights UH ... and weighting a reference signal with transmit weights in the reverse direction to the other end by using a conjugate matrix U* for U obtained ... as the transmit weights, and transmitting the reference signal, see paragraph [0079]); and
the precoding based at least in part on the modified reference signal (Takano: receiving a reference signal weighted with a conjugate matrix U* for U as uplink transmit weights and acquiring HTU*=V*DUT=V*- D; separating downlink transmit weights V from V*D, based on the unitary matrix properties; and weighting data with the downlink transmit weights V and transmitting the data, see paragraph [0080]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yu to include the features as taught by Takano above in order to remove superfluous calculations at the transmitter (Takano: see paragraph [0078]).
Regarding Claims 13, 18, and 21, the limitations of the claims are substantially the same as the limitations of claims 2, 7, and 10, respectively, and claims 13, 15, 18, and 21 are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claims 23, 24 and 26, the limitations of the claims are substantially the same as the limitations of claims 1, 7 and 10, respectively, and claims 23, 24 and 26 are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 27, the limitations of the claim are substantially the same as the limitations of claim 12, and claim 27 is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding Claim 28, the limitations of the claim are substantially the same as the limitations of claim 7, and claim 28 is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 4, 15, 31, and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu-Takano in view of Zhang et al. (US 2020/0274603 A1, hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding Claim 4, Yu-Takano teaches the UE of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach, the indication of the preprocessing matrix comprises an indication of elements of the preprocessing matrix.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Zhang teaches the indication of the preprocessing matrix comprises an indication of elements of the preprocessing matrix (Zhang: The precoding indication information is information that indicates a precoding matrix, an element in a precoding matrix, or a factor of an element in a precoding matrix, see paragraph [0160]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yu-Takano to include the features as taught by Zhang above in order to reduce feedback overhead (Zhang: see paragraph [0011]).
Regarding Claims 15, 31, and 33, the limitations of the claims are substantially the same as the limitations of claim 4, and claims 15, 31, and 33 are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 5, 16, 32, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu-Takano-Zhang in view of Chen et al. (US 2009/0046569 A1, hereinafter “Chen”).
Regarding Claim 5, Yu-Takano-Zhang teaches the UE of claim 4.
Zhang further teaches, wherein the indication of the elements of the preprocessing matrix comprises an indication of representative elements of the preprocessing matrix (Zhang: The precoding indication information is information that indicates a precoding matrix, an element in a precoding matrix, or a factor of an element in a precoding matrix, see paragraph [0160]).
The rationale and motivation for adding the teaching of Zhang is the same as the rationale and motivation for Claim 4.
Yu-Takano-Zhang does not explicitly teach a granularity that is less than elements of the preprocessing matrix as calculated by the UE.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Chen teaches a granularity that is less than elements of the preprocessing matrix as calculated by the UE (Chen: a single PMI or lower-granularity precoding and feedback are used for sub-bands with worse channel, see paragraph [0417]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yu-Takano-Zhang to include the features as taught by Chen above in order to reduce feedback overhead (Chen: see paragraph [0327]).
Regarding Claims 16, 32, and 34, the limitations of the claims are substantially the same as the limitations of claim 5, and claims 16, 32, and 34 are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 6 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu-Takano in view of Choi et al. (US 2015/0171949 A1, hereinafter “Choi”).
Regarding Claim 6, Yu-Takano teaches the UE of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach, the indication of the preprocessing matrix is included in a preprocessing report that comprises indications of a number of resource blocks associated with each value of the indication of the preprocessing matrix.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Choi teaches the indication of the preprocessing matrix is included in a preprocessing report that comprises indications of a number of resource blocks associated with each value of the indication of the preprocessing matrix (Choi: The PMI value refers to the codebook table. The network configures the number of resource blocks that are represented by a PMI report, see paragraph [0058]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yu-Takano to include the features as taught by Choi above in order to indicate an optimum precoding matrix for a given radio condition (Choi: see paragraph [0058]).
Regarding Claim 17, the limitations of the claim are substantially the same as the limitations of claim 6, and claim 17 is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 8, 19, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu-Takano in view of Dou et al. (US 2016/0013863 A1, hereinafter “Dou”).
Regarding Claim 8, Yu-Takano teaches the UE of claim 7, but does not teach, wherein each group of the groups is associated with a respective codeword.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Dou teaches, each group of the groups is associated with a respective codeword (Dou: the transmitter 100 may further include a selecting unit 103 configured to select codewords at the two polarization states; wherein the codewords at the two polarization states are different [0056]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yu-Takano to include the features as taught by Dou above in order to more accurately estimate noise (Dou: see paragraph [0027]).
Regarding Claims 19 and 29, the limitations of the claims are substantially the same as the limitations of claim 8, and claims 19 and 29 are therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 9 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu-Takano in view of Sakai et al. (US 2022/0029666 A1, hereinafter “Sakai”).
Regarding Claim 9, Yu-Takano teaches the UE of claim 7, but does not explicitly teach, wherein the one or more processors, to receive the communication, are configured to demodulate and decode the communication based at least in part on grouping.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Sakai teaches the one or more processors, to receive the communication, are configured to demodulate and decode the communication based at least in part on grouping (Sakai: The OFDM demodulation unit 211-1 performs OFDM demodulation processing on the broadcast signal of the horizontally polarized wave received via a reception antenna 221-1, and supplies a demodulated signal obtained as a result to the TMCC demodulation decoding unit 212-1, see paragraph [0123]; The OFDM demodulation unit 211-2 performs OFDM demodulation processing on the broadcast signal of the vertically polarized wave received via a reception antenna 221-2, and supplies a demodulated signal obtained as a result to the TMCC demodulation decoding unit 212-2, see paragraph [0128]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yu-Takano to include the features as taught by Sakai above in order to improve signal transmission accuracy (Sakai: see paragraph [0005]).
Regarding Claim 25, the limitations of the claim are substantially the same as the limitations of claim 9, and claim 25 is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 11 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yu-Takano in view of Krishnamurthy (US 2015/0030092 A1, hereinafter “Krishnamurthy”).
Regarding Claim 11, Yu-Takano teaches the UE of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach, wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the indication of the preprocessing matrix, are configured to: transmit the indication of the preprocessing matrix as a periodic indication of the preprocessing matrix.
However, in the same field of endeavor, Krishnamurthy teaches, wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the indication of the preprocessing matrix, are configured to: transmit the indication of the preprocessing matrix as a periodic indication of the preprocessing matrix (Krishnamurthy: In another example, the UE is configured for subband CQI/PMI periodic reporting ... If the most recent transmitted PTI is set to `0` (first state), the UE transmits a second CSI report on a subset of the second reporting instances and does so with a third periodicity ... the second CSI report includes a first PMI, the first PMI being a representation of the first index (i-1), see paragraph [0147]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Yu-Takano to include the features as taught by Krishnamurthy above in order to improve UE throughput performance (Krishnamurthy: see paragraph [0148]).
Regarding Claim 22, the limitations of the claim are substantially the same as the limitations of claim 11, and claim 22 is therefore rejected for the same reasons.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bury (US 2012/0082274 A1) teaches that the UE may include an indication of the number of receive antennas that supply assessable signals in the report fed back to the base station (see paragraph [0043].
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHILLIP J EGAN KEARNS whose telephone number is 571-272-4869. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 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, 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.
/P.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2416
/SHARMIN CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416