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 .
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/13/26 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 13, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been fully considered and in light of amendment are persuasive. The 35 U.S.C. 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, starting on page 14, with respect to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 have been fully considered and in light of amendment are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Hernando (US 20220337293 A1).
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 11, 13-15, 17-18, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laghate (US 20200412425 A1) in view of Hernando (US 20220337293 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Laghate discloses:
“An apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor,” ([para 0053]: “The device 405 may include… one or more memory devices 430, one or more processors 440…”)
“cause the apparatus at least to perform: obtaining a measured … in at least a first channel;” ([para 0065]: “At step 504, the UE determines a channel quality metric associated with a channel between the UE and the transmitting device.” ; [para 0040]: “The UE 115 may determine a channel quality metric (e.g., one or more of reference signal received power (RSRP), a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR or SINR), or spectral efficiency) associated with a downlink channel on the communication link 125.”)
“in dependence upon the measured … satisfying a condition, determining to increase, decrease, or maintain a number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel… and in dependence upon the determination, changing the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel.” ([para 0075]: “At step 508, the UE adjusts a number of antenna elements used for beamformed wireless communication between the transmitting device and the UE when the comparison between the channel quality metric and the channel quality threshold at step 506 indicates a change may be beneficial.”)
Laghate does not explicitly disclose the quality metric is “power loss” nor “wherein the condition comprises a drop in condition number for a diagonal channel matrix or a drop in power per channel.”
However, Hernando discloses the missing feature that the quality metric is “power loss” and “wherein the condition comprises a drop in condition number for a diagonal channel matrix or a drop in power per channel.” (See the technique in paragraph 13. It cycles through different numbers of antennas searching for the lowest condition number of the channel matrix by recording the lowest calculated condition number and comparing future calculated condition numbers to it. Because it is comparing condition numbers seeking lower values, this could reasonably be interpreted as the condition being a drop in condition number. Because it is doing so for different numbers of antennas, this could reasonably be interpreted as “determining to increase, decrease, or maintain a number of antenna elements” based on the condition.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Laghate and Hernando, to modify the quality metric as disclosed by Laghate, to be power loss as disclosed by Hernando. The motivation for doing so is that it is a standard parameter and would thus be obvious to try. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Laghate with Hernando to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 3, Laghate in view of Hernando discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Laghate further discloses “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus, in dependence upon the measured power loss, to determine to increase, decrease, or maintain a number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel by: in dependence upon the channel measurement, determining to selectively increase the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication using at least the first channel to an increased number; wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus, in dependence upon the determination, to change the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel by: in dependence upon the determination, selectively increasing the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel to the increased number.” ([para 0020]: “On the other hand, when the quality of the channel is determined to not be favorable (e.g., relatively higher interference is present), then a beam with a higher number of antenna elements may be beneficial, and thus the UE may increase the number of antenna elements used for an upcoming downlink reception.” Wherein power loss is obvious in view of Hernando as discussed in relation to the parent claim, and this similarly applies for the remaining dependent claims.)
Regarding claim 4, Laghate in view of Hernando discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Laghate further discloses “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus, in dependence upon the measured power loss, to determine to increase, decrease, or maintain a number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel by: in dependence upon the channel measurement indicating that the power loss of the first channel exceeds a threshold, determining to increase the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel.” ([para 0040]: “The UE 115 may then compare the channel quality metric with a channel quality threshold and adjust a number of antenna elements used for an upcoming reception opportunity based on the threshold comparison result… When the threshold comparison indicates that the channel quality is relatively low (e.g., potentially lower than needed to support the desired level of quality), then the UE 115 may increase the number of antenna elements used for beamformed wireless communication from the base station 105 to the UE 115.)
Regarding claim 11, Laghate in view of Hernando discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Laghate further discloses “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to change the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel by reconfiguring a spatial filter provided by a group of antenna elements for beam-formed communication via the first channel, wherein the group of antenna elements does not comprise one or more antenna elements before changing the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel that it comprises after changing the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel, and/or wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to change a number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the second channel configured to reconfigure a spatial filter provided by a group of antenna elements for beam-formed communication via the second channel, wherein the group of antenna elements does comprise one or more antenna elements before changing the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel that it does not comprise after changing the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel.” ([para 0035]: “Beamforming, which may also be referred to as spatial filtering, directional transmission, or directional reception, is a signal processing technique that may be used at a transmitting device or a receiving device (e.g., a base station 105 or a UE 115) to shape or steer an antenna beam (e.g., a transmit beam or receive beam) along a spatial path between the transmitting device and the receiving device.”)
Regarding claim 13, Laghate in view of Hernando discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Laghate further discloses “evaluating the changed number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication using at least the first channel using a downlink signal.” ([para 0079]: “The selection of the second beam for reception at step 510 may include determining that the first beam remains valid for beamformed wireless communication between the transmitting device and the UE for reception of the second signal, but that choosing the second beam would provide one or more other benefits.”)
Regarding claim 14, Laghate discloses:
“A method comprising: determining, in dependence upon a measured … to increase, decrease, or maintain a number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via a first channel; and” ([para 0065]: “At step 504, the UE determines a channel quality metric associated with a channel between the UE and the transmitting device.” ; [para 0040]: “The UE 115 may determine a channel quality metric (e.g., one or more of reference signal received power (RSRP), a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR or SINR), or spectral efficiency) associated with a downlink channel on the communication link 125.”)
“in dependence upon the determination, changing the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel.” ([para 0075]: “At step 508, the UE adjusts a number of antenna elements used for beamformed wireless communication between the transmitting device and the UE when the comparison between the channel quality metric and the channel quality threshold at step 506 indicates a change may be beneficial.”)
Laghate does not explicitly disclose the quality metric is “power loss” nor “wherein the condition comprises a drop in condition number for a diagonal channel matrix or a drop in power per channel.”
However, Hernando discloses the missing feature that the quality metric is “power loss” and “wherein the condition comprises a drop in condition number for a diagonal channel matrix or a drop in power per channel.” (See the technique in paragraph 13. It cycles through different numbers of antennas searching for the lowest condition number of the channel matrix by recording the lowest calculated condition number and comparing future calculated condition numbers to it. Because it is comparing condition numbers seeking lower values, this could reasonably be interpreted as the condition being a drop in condition number. Because it is doing so for different numbers of antennas, this could reasonably be interpreted as “determining to increase, decrease, or maintain a number of antenna elements” based on the condition.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Laghate and Hernando, to modify the quality metric as disclosed by Laghate, to be power loss as disclosed by Hernando. The motivation for doing so is that it is a standard parameter and would thus be obvious to try. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Laghate with Hernando to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 15, Laghate in view of Hernando discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Laghate does not explicitly disclose “further comprising obtaining the measured power loss in at least the first channel.”
However, Hernando discloses the missing feature “further comprising obtaining the measured power loss in at least the first channel.” ([para 0198]: “A basic uplink transmit power control principle is estimating a path loss and inferring strength of a signal arriving at a receive end. The following is an SRS power control method.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Laghate and Hernando, to modify the quality metric as disclosed by Laghate, to be power loss as disclosed by Hernando. The motivation for doing so is that it is a standard parameter similarly to RSRP or SNR and would thus be obvious to try. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Laghate with Hernando to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 17, Laghate in view of Hernando discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Laghate further discloses “wherein, in dependence upon the measured power loss, determining to increase, decrease, or maintain a number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel comprises: in dependence upon the channel measurement, determining to selectively increase the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication using at least the first channel to an increased number; wherein, in dependence upon the determination, changing the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel comprises: in dependence upon the determination, selectively increasing the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel to the increased number.” ([para 0020]: “On the other hand, when the quality of the channel is determined to not be favorable (e.g., relatively higher interference is present), then a beam with a higher number of antenna elements may be beneficial, and thus the UE may increase the number of antenna elements used for an upcoming downlink reception.”)
Regarding claim 18, Laghate in view of Hernando discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Laghate further discloses “wherein, in dependence upon the measured power loss, determining to increase, decrease, or maintain a number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel comprises: in dependence upon the channel measurement indicating that the power loss of the first channel exceeds a threshold, determining to increase the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel.” ([para 0040]: “The UE 115 may then compare the channel quality metric with a channel quality threshold and adjust a number of antenna elements used for an upcoming reception opportunity based on the threshold comparison result… When the threshold comparison indicates that the channel quality is relatively low (e.g., potentially lower than needed to support the desired level of quality), then the UE 115 may increase the number of antenna elements used for beamformed wireless communication from the base station 105 to the UE 115.)
Claims 20 is substantially similar to claim 14 with the differences amounting to that claim 14 is directed towards a method while claim 20 is directed towards a non-transitory computer readable medium. A non-transitory computer readable medium is taught by Laghate in paragraph 107. Thus, claim 20 is rejected for similar reasons to claim 14.
Claim(s) 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laghate (US 20200412425 A1) in view of Hernando (US 20220337293 A1) and further in view of Ingelhag (US 20250015512 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Laghate in view of Hernando discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Laghate further discloses “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to obtain a measured power loss in at least a first channel by: obtaining a measured power loss of at least a channel of a set of four simultaneous multiple-input multiple-output channels, where … wherein the four simultaneous channels simultaneously multiplex four data streams as four MIMO layers; wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus, in dependence upon the measured power loss, to determine to increase, decrease, or maintain a number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel by: in dependence upon the measured power loss, determining to redistribute antenna elements of an antenna panel between a set of four groups comprising… and wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus, in dependence upon the determination, to change the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel by: in dependence upon the determination, redistributing antenna elements of the antenna panel between the set of four groups comprising…” ([para 0034]: “For example, wireless communications system 100 may use a transmission scheme between a transmitting device (e.g., a base station 105) and a receiving device (e.g., a UE 115), where the transmitting device is equipped with multiple antennas and the receiving device is equipped with one or more antennas. MIMO communications may employ multipath signal propagation to increase the spectral efficiency by transmitting or receiving multiple signals via different spatial layers, which may be referred to as spatial multiplexing. The multiple signals may, for example, be transmitted by the transmitting device via different antennas or different combinations of antennas. Likewise, the multiple signals may be received by the receiving device via different antennas or different combinations of antennas.”)
Laghate does not explicitly disclose “a first channel has a first directionality and a first polarization, a second channel has the first directionality and a second polarization orthogonal to the first polarization, a third channel has the first polarization and a second directionality different to the first directionality, and a fourth channel has the second polarization and the second directionality… a first group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the first directionality and the first polarization for the first channel, a second group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the first directionality and the second polarization for the second channel, a third group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the second directionality and the first polarization for the third channel, and a fourth group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the second directionality and the second polarization for the fourth channel… the first group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the first directionality and the first polarization for the first channel, the second group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the first directionality and the second polarization for the second channel, the third group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the second directionality and the first polarization for the third channel, and the fourth group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the second directionality and the second polarization for the fourth channel.”
However, Ingelhag discloses the missing feature “a first channel has a first directionality and a first polarization, a second channel has the first directionality and a second polarization orthogonal to the first polarization, a third channel has the first polarization and a second directionality different to the first directionality, and a fourth channel has the second polarization and the second directionality… a first group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the first directionality and the first polarization for the first channel, a second group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the first directionality and the second polarization for the second channel, a third group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the second directionality and the first polarization for the third channel, and a fourth group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the second directionality and the second polarization for the fourth channel… the first group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the first directionality and the first polarization for the first channel, the second group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the first directionality and the second polarization for the second channel, the third group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the second directionality and the first polarization for the third channel, and the fourth group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the second directionality and the second polarization for the fourth channel” ([para 0070]: “FIGS. 3A and 3B illustrate how, by proper orientation of each AiP 100-103 relative to the other ones, and by arranging the AiPs 100-103 in two pairs 200 and 201 can provide two larger array antennas, wherein one such larger array antenna can transmit and receive in a first and second polarization, respectively, while the other such array antenna can transmit and receive in the second and first polarization, respectively.” ; [para 0072]: “The first and second AiP pair assemblies 200 and 201 of each AiP quartet assembly 300a-d are arranged next to each other along the first direction 11, while the various AiP quartet assemblies 300a-d themselves are arranged next to each other in the second direction 12.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Laghate, Hernando, and Ingelhag to modify the quality metric as disclosed by Laghate, to utilize the antenna arrangement as disclosed by Ingelhag. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Laghate with Hernando and Ingelhag to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 16, Laghate in view of Hernando discloses all the features of the parent claim.
Laghate further discloses “wherein obtaining a measured power loss in at least a first channel comprises: obtaining a measured power loss of at least a channel of a set of four simultaneous multiple-input multiple-output channels, where … wherein the four simultaneous channels simultaneously multiplex four data streams as four MIMO layers; wherein, in dependence upon the measured power loss, determining to increase, decrease, or maintain a number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel comprises: in dependence upon the measured power loss, determining to redistribute antenna elements of an antenna panel between a set of four groups comprising… and wherein, in dependence upon the determination, changing the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel comprises: in dependence upon the determination, redistributing antenna elements of the antenna panel between the set of four groups comprising…” ([para 0034]: “For example, wireless communications system 100 may use a transmission scheme between a transmitting device (e.g., a base station 105) and a receiving device (e.g., a UE 115), where the transmitting device is equipped with multiple antennas and the receiving device is equipped with one or more antennas. MIMO communications may employ multipath signal propagation to increase the spectral efficiency by transmitting or receiving multiple signals via different spatial layers, which may be referred to as spatial multiplexing. The multiple signals may, for example, be transmitted by the transmitting device via different antennas or different combinations of antennas. Likewise, the multiple signals may be received by the receiving device via different antennas or different combinations of antennas.”)
Laghate does not explicitly disclose “a first channel has a first directionality and a first polarization, a second channel has the first directionality and a second polarization orthogonal to the first polarization, a third channel has the first polarization and a second directionality different to the first directionality, and a fourth channel has the second polarization and the second directionality… a first group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the first directionality and the first polarization for the first channel, a second group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the first directionality and the second polarization for the second channel, a third group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the second directionality and the first polarization for the third channel, and a fourth group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the second directionality and the second polarization for the fourth channel… the first group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the first directionality and the first polarization for the first channel, the second group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the first directionality and the second polarization for the second channel, the third group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the second directionality and the first polarization for the third channel, and the fourth group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the second directionality and the second polarization for the fourth channel.”
However, Ingelhag discloses the missing feature “a first channel has a first directionality and a first polarization, a second channel has the first directionality and a second polarization orthogonal to the first polarization, a third channel has the first polarization and a second directionality different to the first directionality, and a fourth channel has the second polarization and the second directionality… a first group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the first directionality and the first polarization for the first channel, a second group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the first directionality and the second polarization for the second channel, a third group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the second directionality and the first polarization for the third channel, and a fourth group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the second directionality and the second polarization for the fourth channel… the first group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the first directionality and the first polarization for the first channel, the second group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the first directionality and the second polarization for the second channel, the third group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the second directionality and the first polarization for the third channel, and the fourth group of antenna elements used to form a beam of the second directionality and the second polarization for the fourth channel” ([para 0070]: “FIGS. 3A and 3B illustrate how, by proper orientation of each AiP 100-103 relative to the other ones, and by arranging the AiPs 100-103 in two pairs 200 and 201 can provide two larger array antennas, wherein one such larger array antenna can transmit and receive in a first and second polarization, respectively, while the other such array antenna can transmit and receive in the second and first polarization, respectively.” ; [para 0072]: “The first and second AiP pair assemblies 200 and 201 of each AiP quartet assembly 300a-d are arranged next to each other along the first direction 11, while the various AiP quartet assemblies 300a-d themselves are arranged next to each other in the second direction 12.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Laghate, Hernando, and Ingelhag to modify the quality metric as disclosed by Laghate, to utilize the antenna arrangement as disclosed by Ingelhag. The motivation for doing so is that it increases flexibility. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Laghate with Hernando and Ingelhag to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 5-10 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laghate (US 20200412425 A1) in view of Hernando (US 20220337293 A1) and further in view of Lu (US 20160088522 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Laghate in view of Hernando disclose all the features of the parent claim.
Laghate does not explicitly disclose “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus, in dependence upon the determination, to change the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel by: redistributing antenna elements between at least a group used for beam-formed communication via the first channel and a group used for simultaneous beam-formed communication via at least a second channel, maintaining communication via at least the first channel and at least the second channel, and/or reducing a difference between reception power for the first channel and the second channel.”
However, Lu discloses the missing feature “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus, in dependence upon the determination, to change the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel by: redistributing antenna elements between at least a group used for beam-formed communication via the first channel and a group used for simultaneous beam-formed communication via at least a second channel, maintaining communication via at least the first channel and at least the second channel, and/or reducing a difference between reception power for the first channel and the second channel.” ([para 0064]: “For example, from the correlation, edges between low-traffic areas and high-traffic areas may be determined. Then the front haul switching and monitoring approach may be used in the roughly estimated hotspots to finely determine the hotspots. This may be performed by switching 708 an antenna carrier through the AAEs roughly estimated to be serving high-traffic areas, and monitoring 710 the traffic load through the antenna carrier at each of these roughly determined AAEs, i.e. when the antenna carrier is connected to the AAE.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Laghate, Hernando, and Lu to modify the technique as disclosed by Laghate, to redistribute antennas as disclosed by Lu. The motivation for doing so is that it increases optimization, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Laghate with Hernando and Lu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 6, Laghate in view of Hernando disclose all the features of the parent claim.
Laghate does not explicitly disclose “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus, in dependence upon the determination, to change the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel by: redistributing antenna elements between N groups used for multiple-input multiple-output beam-formed communication, to maintain the N multiple outputs-for multiple-input multiple-output, and/or reducing a maximum difference between reception power for N multiple outputs for multiple-input multiple-output.”
However, Lu discloses the missing feature “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus, in dependence upon the determination, to change the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel by: redistributing antenna elements between N groups used for multiple-input multiple-output beam-formed communication, to maintain the N multiple outputs-for multiple-input multiple-output, and/or reducing a maximum difference between reception power for N multiple outputs for multiple-input multiple-output.” ([para 0031]: “The antenna site may comprise one antenna (or antenna element) or multiple antennas (or antenna elements), the latter for e.g. supporting Multiple Input Multiple Output, MIMO, communication.” ; [para 0064]: “For example, from the correlation, edges between low-traffic areas and high-traffic areas may be determined. Then the front haul switching and monitoring approach may be used in the roughly estimated hotspots to finely determine the hotspots. This may be performed by switching 708 an antenna carrier through the AAEs roughly estimated to be serving high-traffic areas, and monitoring 710 the traffic load through the antenna carrier at each of these roughly determined AAEs, i.e. when the antenna carrier is connected to the AAE.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Laghate, Hernando, and Lu to modify the technique as disclosed by Laghate, to redistribute antennas as disclosed by Lu. The motivation for doing so is that it increases optimization, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Laghate with Hernando and Lu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 7, Laghate in view of Hernando disclose all the features of the parent claim.
Laghate does not explicitly disclose “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus, in dependence upon the determination, to change the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel by: redistributing antenna elements between at least a group used for beam-formed communication via the first channel and a second group used for beam-formed communication via a second channel, wherein one or more antenna elements in the group used for beam-formed communication via the second channel, are removed from that group and used in the group for give simultaneous beam-formed communication via the first channel.”
However, Lu discloses the missing feature “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus, in dependence upon the determination, to change the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel by: redistributing antenna elements between at least a group used for beam-formed communication via the first channel and a second group used for beam-formed communication via a second channel, wherein one or more antenna elements in the group used for beam-formed communication via the second channel, are removed from that group and used in the group for give simultaneous beam-formed communication via the first channel.” ([para 0064]: “For example, from the correlation, edges between low-traffic areas and high-traffic areas may be determined. Then the front haul switching and monitoring approach may be used in the roughly estimated hotspots to finely determine the hotspots. This may be performed by switching 708 an antenna carrier through the AAEs roughly estimated to be serving high-traffic areas, and monitoring 710 the traffic load through the antenna carrier at each of these roughly determined AAEs, i.e. when the antenna carrier is connected to the AAE.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Laghate, Hernando, and Lu to modify the technique as disclosed by Laghate, to redistribute antennas as disclosed by Lu. The motivation for doing so is that it increases optimization, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Laghate with Hernando and Lu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 8, Laghate in view of Hernando disclose all the features of the parent claim.
Laghate does not explicitly disclose “wherein communication power for the first channel increases as a consequence of increasing the number of antenna elements used for beam-forming when communicating using at least the first channel, and communication power for a second channel decreases as a consequence of increasing the number of antenna elements used for beam-forming when communicating using at least the first channel.”
However, Lu discloses the missing feature “wherein communication power for the first channel increases as a consequence of increasing the number of antenna elements used for beam-forming when communicating using at least the first channel, and communication power for a second channel decreases as a consequence of increasing the number of antenna elements used for beam-forming when communicating using at least the first channel.” ([para 0036]: “By only performing this measuring antenna carrier switching and monitoring technique on a limited number of antennas sites, which uplink powers are above an uplink power threshold, the antenna carriers are well utilized during an estimation period and the high traffic loads are found anyhow.” ; [para 0064]: “For example, from the correlation, edges between low-traffic areas and high-traffic areas may be determined. Then the front haul switching and monitoring approach may be used in the roughly estimated hotspots to finely determine the hotspots. This may be performed by switching 708 an antenna carrier through the AAEs roughly estimated to be serving high-traffic areas, and monitoring 710 the traffic load through the antenna carrier at each of these roughly determined AAEs, i.e. when the antenna carrier is connected to the AAE.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Laghate, Hernando, and Lu to modify the technique as disclosed by Laghate, to redistribute antennas as disclosed by Lu. The motivation for doing so is that it increases optimization, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Laghate with Hernando and Lu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 9, Laghate in view of Hernando disclose all the features of the parent claim.
Laghate further discloses “wherein the first channel is a first downlink channel and a second channel is a second downlink channel, the at least one memory and the instructions are further configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to perform: measuring power loss of the first downlink channel; and measuring power loss of the second downlink channel;” ([para 0020]: “On the other hand, when the quality of the channel is determined to not be favorable (e.g., relatively higher interference is present), then a beam with a higher number of antenna elements may be beneficial, and thus the UE may increase the number of antenna elements used for an upcoming downlink reception.”)
Laghate does not explicitly disclose “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus, in dependence upon the measured power loss, to determine to increase, decrease, or maintain a number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel by: determining before increasing or decreasing the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel that reception power of the first downlink channel is less than the reception power of second downlink channel by a threshold value.”
However, Lu discloses the missing feature “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus, in dependence upon the measured power loss, to determine to increase, decrease, or maintain a number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel by: determining before increasing or decreasing the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel that reception power of the first downlink channel is less than the reception power of second downlink channel by a threshold value.” ([para 0036]: “By only performing this measuring antenna carrier switching and monitoring technique on a limited number of antennas sites, which uplink powers are above an uplink power threshold, the antenna carriers are well utilized during an estimation period and the high traffic loads are found anyhow.” ; [para 0064]: “For example, from the correlation, edges between low-traffic areas and high-traffic areas may be determined. Then the front haul switching and monitoring approach may be used in the roughly estimated hotspots to finely determine the hotspots. This may be performed by switching 708 an antenna carrier through the AAEs roughly estimated to be serving high-traffic areas, and monitoring 710 the traffic load through the antenna carrier at each of these roughly determined AAEs, i.e. when the antenna carrier is connected to the AAE.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Laghate, Hernando, and Lu to modify the technique as disclosed by Laghate, to redistribute antennas as disclosed by Lu. The motivation for doing so is that it increases optimization, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Laghate with Hernando and Lu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 10, Laghate in view of Hernando disclose all the features of the parent claim.
Laghate does not explicitly disclose “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to determine-an increase or decrease in the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel by reducing a difference between reception power for the first downlink channel and the second downlink channel.”
However, Lu discloses the missing feature “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to determine-an increase or decrease in the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel by reducing a difference between reception power for the first downlink channel and the second downlink channel.” ([para 0064]: “For example, from the correlation, edges between low-traffic areas and high-traffic areas may be determined. Then the front haul switching and monitoring approach may be used in the roughly estimated hotspots to finely determine the hotspots. This may be performed by switching 708 an antenna carrier through the AAEs roughly estimated to be serving high-traffic areas, and monitoring 710 the traffic load through the antenna carrier at each of these roughly determined AAEs, i.e. when the antenna carrier is connected to the AAE.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Laghate, Hernando, and Lu to modify the technique as disclosed by Laghate, to redistribute antennas as disclosed by Lu. The motivation for doing so is that it increases optimization, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Laghate with Hernando and Lu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Regarding claim 19, Laghate in view of Hernando disclose all the features of the parent claim.
Laghate does not explicitly disclose “wherein, in dependence upon the determination, changing the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel by: redistributing antenna elements between at least a group used for beam-formed communication via the first channel and a group used for simultaneous beam-formed communication via at least a second channel, maintaining communication via at least the first channel and at least the second channel, and/or reducing a difference between reception power for the first channel and the second channel.”
However, Lu discloses the missing feature “wherein, in dependence upon the determination, changing the number of antenna elements used for beam-formed communication via the first channel by: redistributing antenna elements between at least a group used for beam-formed communication via the first channel and a group used for simultaneous beam-formed communication via at least a second channel, maintaining communication via at least the first channel and at least the second channel, and/or reducing a difference between reception power for the first channel and the second channel.” ([para 0064]: “For example, from the correlation, edges between low-traffic areas and high-traffic areas may be determined. Then the front haul switching and monitoring approach may be used in the roughly estimated hotspots to finely determine the hotspots. This may be performed by switching 708 an antenna carrier through the AAEs roughly estimated to be serving high-traffic areas, and monitoring 710 the traffic load through the antenna carrier at each of these roughly determined AAEs, i.e. when the antenna carrier is connected to the AAE.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Laghate, Hernando, and Lu to modify the technique as disclosed by Laghate, to redistribute antennas as disclosed by Lu. The motivation for doing so is that it increases optimization, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Laghate with Hernando and Lu to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Laghate (US 20200412425 A1) in view of Hernando (US 20220337293 A1) and further in view of He (US 20210320708 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Laghate in view of Hernando disclose all the features of the parent claim.
Laghate does not explicitly disclose “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to reconfigured the spatial filter by changing an angle of beam-forming for first channel, and/or changing an angle of beam-forming for the second channel.”
However, He discloses the missing feature “wherein the at least one memory and the instructions are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the apparatus to reconfigured the spatial filter by changing an angle of beam-forming for first channel, and/or changing an angle of beam-forming for the second channel.” ([para 0064]: “For example, from the correlation, edges between low-traffic areas and high-traffic areas may be determined. Then the front haul switching and monitoring approach may be used in the roughly estimated hotspots to finely determine the hotspots. This may be performed by switching 708 an antenna carrier through the AAEs roughly estimated to be serving high-traffic areas, and monitoring 710 the traffic load through the antenna carrier at each of these roughly determined AAEs, i.e. when the antenna carrier is connected to the AAE.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, having the teachings of Laghate, Hernando, and He to modify the technique as disclosed by Laghate, to reconfigure the spatial filter as disclosed by He. The motivation for doing so is that it increases optimization, thus improving service quality. Therefore, it would have been obvious to combine Laghate with Hernando and He to obtain the invention as specified in the instant claim.
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 SAAD KHAWAR whose telephone number is (571)272-7948. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9:00am - 5:00pm.
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at (571)-270-7191. 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.
/SAAD KHAWAR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights