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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-8 and 26-28 in the reply filed on 05/05/2026 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/16/2024 and 01/30/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 44-49 recite “means for obtaining”, “means for generating”, “means for reducing interference”, “means for transmitting”, and “means for identifying”. Applicant’s Specification defines said means as “the means for the transmitter device to perform operations described herein may include, for example, one or more of communication manager 150, transmit processor 220, TX MIMO processor 230, modem 232, antenna 234, MIMO detector 236, receive processor 238, controller/processor 240, memory 242, or scheduler 246. In some aspects, the means for the transmitter device to perform operations described herein may include, for example, one or more of communication manager 140, antenna 252, modem 254, MIMO detector 256, receive processor 258, transmit processor 264, TX MIMO processor 266, controller/processor 280, or memory 282”.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 8, 26, 31-32, 35-38, and 43-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia Ordonez et al. (US 2018/0359076 A1; “Garcia”) in view of Yin et al., “Full-Duplex in Large-Scale Wireless Systems”, 2013 Asilomar Conference on Signals, Systems, and Computers, IEEE, 3 November 2013 (2013-11-03), pages 1623-1627, XP032593086. DOI: 10.1109/ACSSC.2013.6810573 (cited in Applicant’s IDS submitted on 12/16/2024; “Yin”).
Regarding claim 1, Garcia teaches a transmitter device for wireless communication, comprising:
one or more memories; and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories [Garcia ¶ 0033: invention can be implemented in hardware and/or software; 0062: higher-layer processing unit (while memory is not explicitly disclose, memory would be an implicit component of a device implementing software to perform the disclosed invention)], configured to:
obtain a first channel matrix associated with communications between a transmitter device transmission antenna and a transmitter device reception antenna and a second channel matrix associated with communications between the transmitter device transmission antenna and a receiver device reception antenna associated with a receiver device [Garcia ¶ 0058: BS0 determines matrix G0 of size R0 x T0 that describes the self-interference at BS0 (i.e. channel between BS Tx/Rx antenna) and the matrix Gi of size Ri x T0 which represents interference between BS0 and BSi (i.e. channel interference between transmitting device Tx antenna and each receiving device Rx antenna)];
generate a combined channel matrix based at least in part on the first channel matrix and the second channel matrix [Garcia ¶ 0058, Eq. (2): an aggregate interfering channel GH is determined by combining G0 and each neighbor BS interfering channel; ¶ 0060: Matrix GH may be further modified to form F which represents final aggregate interfering channel]; and
reduce interference based at least in part on a precoding matrix [Garcia ¶ 0075, Eq. (4): precoder, W, used for reducing inter-cell interference with neighboring BSi is determined from final aggregate channel matrix F].
However, Garcia does not explicitly disclose reduce interference between the transmitter device transmission antenna and the transmitter device reception antenna based at least in part on multiplying the combined channel matrix by a precoding matrix.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Yin teaches reduce interference between the transmitter device transmission antenna and the transmitter device reception antenna based at least in part on multiplying the combined channel matrix by a precoding matrix [Yin p. 1624-1625, sec. C, Eq, (6) & (7): self-interference is reduced by multiplying sdext (see p. 1623-1624 sec. II. A.: analogous to precoding matrix related to DL transmissions to UE device) with Pext (which is a function of the combined channel matrix H)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of reducing interference by determining precoding according to a combine interference channel matrix as taught by Garcia, with the method of reducing self-interference by determining precoding according to a combined channel interference matrix and a precoding matrix as taught by Yin. The motivation to combine these references would be to mitigate interferences in large scale MIMO communication systems [Yin p. 1623, sec. I].
Regarding claim 2, Garcia in view of Yin teaches the transmitter device of claim 1, however, Garcia does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit to a plurality of receiver devices configured with a plurality of receiver device reception antennas, wherein the interference between the transmitter device transmission antenna and the transmitter device reception antenna is based at least in part on transmissions to the plurality of receiver devices configured with the plurality of receiver device reception antennas.
However, Yin teaches wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit to a plurality of receiver devices configured with a plurality of receiver device reception antennas, wherein the interference between the transmitter device transmission antenna and the transmitter device reception antenna is based at least in part on transmissions to the plurality of receiver devices configured with the plurality of receiver device reception antennas [Yin p. 1624-1625, sec. C, Eq, (6) & (7): self-interference is reduced by multiplying sdext (see p. 1623-1624 sec. II. A.: analogous to precoding matrix related to DL transmissions to UE device) with Pext (which is a function of the combined channel matrix H)].
The motivation to combine these references is illustrated in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 3, Garcia in view of Yin teaches the transmitter device of claim 2, wherein the transmitter device is configured with a quantity of transmitter device transmission antennas and a quantity of transmitter device reception antennas and the plurality of receiver devices are configured with a quantity of receiver device reception antennas corresponding to the plurality of receiver device reception antennas, wherein the quantity of transmitter device reception antennas is greater than or equal to the quantity of receiver device reception antennas [Garcia ¶ 0056, Fig. 3: plurality of full-duplex massive MIMO base stations {BSi} having Mi antennas each. In an embodiment, a base station BSi serves Ki DL user equipments or users using Ti=Mi(TX)+Mi(TX/RX) antennas out of its Mi antenna elements, where Mi(TX) denotes the number of antennas exclusively used for transmission and Mi(TX/RX) denotes the number of antennas used simultaneously for transmission and reception purposes, wherein the users (or user equipments) served by a base station BSi can be either in full-duplex or half-duplex mode and a user in full-duplex mode can be both a DL user and an UL user at the same time and frequency (here, the downlink devices use a subset of the Tx/Rx antennas associated with the BS, i.e., the number Tx/Rx antenna of BS is greater than the number of Rx antenna of the DL UE)].
However, Garcia does not explicitly disclose wherein a sum of the quantity of receiver device reception antennas and the quantity of transmitter device reception antennas is less than or equal to the quantity of transmitter device transmission antennas.
However, where the claimed differences involved to the substitution of interchangeable or replaceable equivalents and the reason for the selection of one equivalent for another was not to solve an existent problem, such substitution has been judicially determined to have been obvious. In re Ruff, 118, USPQ, 343 (CCPA 1958). This supporting is based on a recognition that the claimed difference exist not a result of an attempt by applicant to solve a problem but merely amounts to selection of expedients known to the artisan of ordinary skill as design choices. Here, Garcia teaches an undefined number of BS Rx/Tx antennas and an undefined number of DL UE Rx/Tx antenna, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that a sum of the quantity of receiver device reception antennas and the quantity of transmitter device reception antennas may be less than or equal to the quantity of transmitter device transmission antennas.
Regarding claim 8, Garcia in view of Yin teaches the transmitter device of claim 1, wherein the communications between the transmitter device transmission antenna and the receiver device reception antenna are full-duplex communications or sub-band full-duplex communications [Garcia ¶ 0082: embodiments of the invention allow dealing with the following two types of interference which result from full-duplex operation: (i) inter-cell interference between base stations, and (ii) self-interference at a base station].
Regarding claim 26, Garcia teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a transmitter device, comprising:
obtaining a first channel matrix associated with communications between a transmitter device transmission antenna and a transmitter device reception antenna and a second channel matrix associated with communications between the transmitter device transmission antenna and a receiver device reception antenna associated with a receiver device [Garcia ¶ 0058: BS0 determines matrix G0 of size R0 x T0 that describes the self-interference at BS0 (i.e. channel between BS Tx/Rx antenna) and the matrix Gi of size Ri x T0 which represents interference between BS0 and BSi (i.e. channel interference between transmitting device Tx antenna and each receiving device Rx antenna)];
generating a combined channel matrix based at least in part on the first channel matrix and the second channel matrix [Garcia ¶ 0058, Eq. (2): an aggregate interfering channel GH is determined by combining G0 and each neighbor BS interfering channel; ¶ 0060: Matrix GH may be further modified to form F which represents final aggregate interfering channel]; and
reducing interference based at least in part on a precoding matrix [Garcia ¶ 0075, Eq. (4): precoder, W, used for reducing inter-cell interference with neighboring BSi is determined from final aggregate channel matrix F].
However, Garcia does not explicitly disclose reducing interference between the transmitter device transmission antenna and the transmitter device reception antenna based at least in part on multiplying the combined channel matrix by a precoding matrix.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Yin teaches reducing interference between the transmitter device transmission antenna and the transmitter device reception antenna based at least in part on multiplying the combined channel matrix by a precoding matrix [Yin p. 1624-1625, sec. C, Eq, (6) & (7): self-interference is reduced by multiplying sdext (see p. 1623-1624 sec. II. A.: analogous to precoding matrix related to DL transmissions to UE device) with Pext (which is a function of the combined channel matrix H)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of reducing interference by determining precoding according to a combine interference channel matrix as taught by Garcia, with the method of reducing self-interference by determining precoding according to a combined channel interference matrix and a precoding matrix as taught by Yin. The motivation to combine these references would be to mitigate interferences in large scale MIMO communication systems [Yin p. 1623, sec. I].
Regarding claim 31, Garcia in view of Yin teaches the method of claim 26, however, Garcia does not explicitly disclose further comprising transmitting to a plurality of receiver devices configured with a plurality of receiver device reception antennas, wherein the interference between the transmitter device transmission antenna and the transmitter device reception antenna is based at least in part on transmissions to the plurality of receiver devices configured with the plurality of receiver device reception antennas.
However, Yin teaches transmitting to a plurality of receiver devices configured with a plurality of receiver device reception antennas, wherein the interference between the transmitter device transmission antenna and the transmitter device reception antenna is based at least in part on transmissions to the plurality of receiver devices configured with the plurality of receiver device reception antennas [Yin p. 1624-1625, sec. C, Eq, (6) & (7): self-interference is reduced by multiplying sdext (see p. 1623-1624 sec. II. A.: analogous to precoding matrix related to DL transmissions to UE device) with Pext (which is a function of the combined channel matrix H)].
The motivation to combine these references is illustrated in the rejection of claim 26 above.
Regarding claim 32, Garcia in view of Yin teaches the method of claim 31, wherein the transmitter device is configured with a quantity of transmitter device transmission antennas and a quantity of transmitter device reception antennas and the plurality of receiver devices are configured with a quantity of receiver device reception antennas corresponding to the plurality of receiver device reception antennas, wherein the quantity of transmitter device reception antennas is greater than or equal to the quantity of receiver device reception antennas [Garcia ¶ 0056, Fig. 3: plurality of full-duplex massive MIMO base stations {BSi} having Mi antennas each. In an embodiment, a base station BSi serves Ki DL user equipments or users using Ti=Mi(TX)+Mi(TX/RX) antennas out of its Mi antenna elements, where Mi(TX) denotes the number of antennas exclusively used for transmission and Mi(TX/RX) denotes the number of antennas used simultaneously for transmission and reception purposes, wherein the users (or user equipments) served by a base station BSi can be either in full-duplex or half-duplex mode and a user in full-duplex mode can be both a DL user and an UL user at the same time and frequency (here, the downlink devices use a subset of the Tx/Rx antennas associated with the BS, i.e., the number Tx/Rx antenna of BS is greater than the number of Rx antenna of the DL UE)].
However, Garcia does not explicitly disclose wherein a sum of the quantity of receiver device reception antennas and the quantity of transmitter device reception antennas is less than or equal to the quantity of transmitter device transmission antennas.
However, where the claimed differences involved to the substitution of interchangeable or replaceable equivalents and the reason for the selection of one equivalent for another was not to solve an existent problem, such substitution has been judicially determined to have been obvious. In re Ruff, 118, USPQ, 343 (CCPA 1958). This supporting is based on a recognition that the claimed difference exist not a result of an attempt by applicant to solve a problem but merely amounts to selection of expedients known to the artisan of ordinary skill as design choices. Here, Garcia teaches an undefined number of BS Rx/Tx antennas and an undefined number of DL UE Rx/Tx antenna, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that a sum of the quantity of receiver device reception antennas and the quantity of transmitter device reception antennas may be less than or equal to the quantity of transmitter device transmission antennas.
Regarding claim 35, Garcia in view of Yin teaches the method of claim 26, wherein the communications between the transmitter device transmission antenna and the receiver device reception antenna are full-duplex communications or sub-band full-duplex communications [Garcia ¶ 0082: embodiments of the invention allow dealing with the following two types of interference which result from full-duplex operation: (i) inter-cell interference between base stations, and (ii) self-interference at a base station].
Regarding claim 36, Garcia teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication, the set of instructions comprising: one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a transmitter device [Garcia ¶ 0033: invention can be implemented in hardware and/or software; 0062: higher-layer processing unit (while memory is not explicitly disclose, memory would be an implicit component of a device implementing software to perform the disclosed invention)], cause the transmitter device to:
obtain a first channel matrix associated with communications between a transmitter device transmission antenna and a transmitter device reception antenna and a second channel matrix associated with communications between the transmitter device transmission antenna and a receiver device reception antenna associated with a receiver device [Garcia ¶ 0058: BS0 determines matrix G0 of size R0 x T0 that describes the self-interference at BS0 (i.e. channel between BS Tx/Rx antenna) and the matrix Gi of size Ri x T0 which represents interference between BS0 and BSi (i.e. channel interference between transmitting device Tx antenna and each receiving device Rx antenna)];
generate a combined channel matrix based at least in part on the first channel matrix and the second channel matrix [Garcia ¶ 0058, Eq. (2): an aggregate interfering channel GH is determined by combining G0 and each neighbor BS interfering channel; ¶ 0060: Matrix GH may be further modified to form F which represents final aggregate interfering channel]; and
reduce interference based at least in part on a precoding matrix [Garcia ¶ 0075, Eq. (4): precoder, W, used for reducing inter-cell interference with neighboring BSi is determined from final aggregate channel matrix F].
However, Garcia does not explicitly disclose reduce interference between the transmitter device transmission antenna and the transmitter device reception antenna based at least in part on multiplying the combined channel matrix by a precoding matrix.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Yin teaches reduce interference between the transmitter device transmission antenna and the transmitter device reception antenna based at least in part on multiplying the combined channel matrix by a precoding matrix [Yin p. 1624-1625, sec. C, Eq, (6) & (7): self-interference is reduced by multiplying sdext (see p. 1623-1624 sec. II. A.: analogous to precoding matrix related to DL transmissions to UE device) with Pext (which is a function of the combined channel matrix H)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of reducing interference by determining precoding according to a combine interference channel matrix as taught by Garcia, with the method of reducing self-interference by determining precoding according to a combined channel interference matrix and a precoding matrix as taught by Yin. The motivation to combine these references would be to mitigate interferences in large scale MIMO communication systems [Yin p. 1623, sec. I].
Regarding claim 37, Garcia in view of Yin teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 36, however, Garcia does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more instructions further cause the transmitter device to transmit to a plurality of receiver devices configured with a plurality of receiver device reception antennas, wherein the interference between the transmitter device transmission antenna and the transmitter device reception antenna is based at least in part on transmissions to the plurality of receiver devices configured with the plurality of receiver device reception antennas.
However, Yin teaches wherein the one or more instructions further cause the transmitter device to transmit to a plurality of receiver devices configured with a plurality of receiver device reception antennas, wherein the interference between the transmitter device transmission antenna and the transmitter device reception antenna is based at least in part on transmissions to the plurality of receiver devices configured with the plurality of receiver device reception antennas [Yin p. 1624-1625, sec. C, Eq, (6) & (7): self-interference is reduced by multiplying sdext (see p. 1623-1624 sec. II. A.: analogous to precoding matrix related to DL transmissions to UE device) with Pext (which is a function of the combined channel matrix H)].
The motivation to combine these references is illustrated in the rejection of claim 36 above.
Regarding claim 38, Garcia in view of Yin teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 37, wherein the transmitter device is configured with a quantity of transmitter device transmission antennas and a quantity of transmitter device reception antennas and the plurality of receiver devices are configured with a quantity of receiver device reception antennas corresponding to the plurality of receiver device reception antennas, wherein the quantity of transmitter device reception antennas is greater than or equal to the quantity of receiver device reception antennas [Garcia ¶ 0056, Fig. 3: plurality of full-duplex massive MIMO base stations {BSi} having Mi antennas each. In an embodiment, a base station BSi serves Ki DL user equipments or users using Ti=Mi(TX)+Mi(TX/RX) antennas out of its Mi antenna elements, where Mi(TX) denotes the number of antennas exclusively used for transmission and Mi(TX/RX) denotes the number of antennas used simultaneously for transmission and reception purposes, wherein the users (or user equipments) served by a base station BSi can be either in full-duplex or half-duplex mode and a user in full-duplex mode can be both a DL user and an UL user at the same time and frequency (here, the downlink devices use a subset of the Tx/Rx antennas associated with the BS, i.e., the number Tx/Rx antenna of BS is greater than the number of Rx antenna of the DL UE)].
However, Garcia does not explicitly disclose wherein a sum of the quantity of receiver device reception antennas and the quantity of transmitter device reception antennas is less than or equal to the quantity of transmitter device transmission antennas.
However, where the claimed differences involved to the substitution of interchangeable or replaceable equivalents and the reason for the selection of one equivalent for another was not to solve an existent problem, such substitution has been judicially determined to have been obvious. In re Ruff, 118, USPQ, 343 (CCPA 1958). This supporting is based on a recognition that the claimed difference exist not a result of an attempt by applicant to solve a problem but merely amounts to selection of expedients known to the artisan of ordinary skill as design choices. Here, Garcia teaches an undefined number of BS Rx/Tx antennas and an undefined number of DL UE Rx/Tx antenna, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that a sum of the quantity of receiver device reception antennas and the quantity of transmitter device reception antennas may be less than or equal to the quantity of transmitter device transmission antennas.
Regarding claim 43, Garcia in view of Yin teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 36, wherein the communications between the transmitter device transmission antenna and the receiver device reception antenna are full-duplex communications or sub-band full-duplex communications [Garcia ¶ 0082: embodiments of the invention allow dealing with the following two types of interference which result from full-duplex operation: (i) inter-cell interference between base stations, and (ii) self-interference at a base station].
Regarding claim 44, Garcia teaches an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising:
means for [Garcia ¶ 0033: invention can be implemented in hardware and/or software] obtaining a first channel matrix associated with communications between a transmitter device transmission antenna and a transmitter device reception antenna and a second channel matrix associated with communications between the transmitter device transmission antenna and a receiver device reception antenna associated with a receiver device [Garcia ¶ 0058: BS0 determines matrix G0 of size R0 x T0 that describes the self-interference at BS0 (i.e. channel between BS Tx/Rx antenna) and the matrix Gi of size Ri x T0 which represents interference between BS0 and BSi (i.e. channel interference between transmitting device Tx antenna and each receiving device Rx antenna)];
means for [Garcia ¶ 0033: invention can be implemented in hardware and/or software] generating a combined channel matrix based at least in part on the first channel matrix and the second channel matrix [Garcia ¶ 0058, Eq. (2): an aggregate interfering channel GH is determined by combining G0 and each neighbor BS interfering channel; ¶ 0060: Matrix GH may be further modified to form F which represents final aggregate interfering channel]; and
means for [Garcia ¶ 0033: invention can be implemented in hardware and/or software] reducing interference based at least in part on a precoding matrix [Garcia ¶ 0075, Eq. (4): precoder, W, used for reducing inter-cell interference with neighboring BSi is determined from final aggregate channel matrix F].
However, Garcia does not explicitly disclose reducing interference between the transmitter device transmission antenna and the transmitter device reception antenna based at least in part on multiplying the combined channel matrix by a precoding matrix.
However, in a similar field of endeavor, Yin teaches reducing interference between the transmitter device transmission antenna and the transmitter device reception antenna based at least in part on multiplying the combined channel matrix by a precoding matrix [Yin p. 1624-1625, sec. C, Eq, (6) & (7): self-interference is reduced by multiplying sdext (see p. 1623-1624 sec. II. A.: analogous to precoding matrix related to DL transmissions to UE device) with Pext (which is a function of the combined channel matrix H)].
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of reducing interference by determining precoding according to a combine interference channel matrix as taught by Garcia, with the method of reducing self-interference by determining precoding according to a combined channel interference matrix and a precoding matrix as taught by Yin. The motivation to combine these references would be to mitigate interferences in large scale MIMO communication systems [Yin p. 1623, sec. I].
Regarding claim 45, Garcia in view of Yin teaches the apparatus of claim 44, further comprising
means for [Garcia ¶ 0033: invention can be implemented in hardware and/or software] transmitting to a plurality of receiver devices configured with a plurality of receiver device reception antennas, wherein the interference between the transmitter device transmission antenna and the transmitter device reception antenna is based at least in part on transmissions to the plurality of receiver devices configured with the plurality of receiver device reception antennas.
However, Yin teaches transmitting to a plurality of receiver devices configured with a plurality of receiver device reception antennas, wherein the interference between the transmitter device transmission antenna and the transmitter device reception antenna is based at least in part on transmissions to the plurality of receiver devices configured with the plurality of receiver device reception antennas [Yin p. 1624-1625, sec. C, Eq, (6) & (7): self-interference is reduced by multiplying sdext (see p. 1623-1624 sec. II. A.: analogous to precoding matrix related to DL transmissions to UE device) with Pext (which is a function of the combined channel matrix H)].
The motivation to combine these references is illustrated in the rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 46, Garcia in view of Yin teaches the apparatus of claim 45, wherein the transmitter device is configured with a quantity of transmitter device transmission antennas and a quantity of transmitter device reception antennas and the plurality of receiver devices are configured with a quantity of receiver device reception antennas corresponding to the plurality of receiver device reception antennas, wherein the quantity of transmitter device reception antennas is greater than or equal to the quantity of receiver device reception antennas [Garcia ¶ 0056, Fig. 3: plurality of full-duplex massive MIMO base stations {BSi} having Mi antennas each. In an embodiment, a base station BSi serves Ki DL user equipments or users using Ti=Mi(TX)+Mi(TX/RX) antennas out of its Mi antenna elements, where Mi(TX) denotes the number of antennas exclusively used for transmission and Mi(TX/RX) denotes the number of antennas used simultaneously for transmission and reception purposes, wherein the users (or user equipments) served by a base station BSi can be either in full-duplex or half-duplex mode and a user in full-duplex mode can be both a DL user and an UL user at the same time and frequency (here, the downlink devices use a subset of the Tx/Rx antennas associated with the BS, i.e., the number Tx/Rx antenna of BS is greater than the number of Rx antenna of the DL UE)].
However, Garcia does not explicitly disclose wherein a sum of the quantity of receiver device reception antennas and the quantity of transmitter device reception antennas is less than or equal to the quantity of transmitter device transmission antennas.
However, where the claimed differences involved to the substitution of interchangeable or replaceable equivalents and the reason for the selection of one equivalent for another was not to solve an existent problem, such substitution has been judicially determined to have been obvious. In re Ruff, 118, USPQ, 343 (CCPA 1958). This supporting is based on a recognition that the claimed difference exist not a result of an attempt by applicant to solve a problem but merely amounts to selection of expedients known to the artisan of ordinary skill as design choices. Here, Garcia teaches an undefined number of BS Rx/Tx antennas and an undefined number of DL UE Rx/Tx antenna, therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art that a sum of the quantity of receiver device reception antennas and the quantity of transmitter device reception antennas may be less than or equal to the quantity of transmitter device transmission antennas.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7, 27-28, 33-34, 40-42, and 47-49 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN P COX whose telephone number is (571)272-2728. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00AM-4PM 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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/BRIAN P COX/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights