DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the Amendment filed 2/20/2026. Claims 1-21 are currently pending in the application.
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the previous rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 based on the teachings of Wu et al. (U.S. Publication US 2021/0234587 A1) in view of Long et al. (U.S. Publication US 2023/0141838 A1), Applicant argues that modifying Wu et al. based on the teachings of Long et al. would violate Wu’s principle of operation. Specifically, Applicant argues that Wu et al. is designed for high-performance data processing and requires a coordinated and coherent snapshot of the communication channel so that it can perform complex math to compress the data. Applicant further argues that if Long’s serialized transmission were applied to Wu’s matrix construction, the resulting matrix would be composed of data from different beams and at different channel states and that such a matrix would be meaningless as a description of channel state, as the “taps” and frequency responses would not align to form a valid channel description. Thus, Applicant argues that Long et al. cannot be combined with Wu et al. The Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Wu et al. teaches its UE receiving one or more signals from a second wireless device over a plurality of layer and beam bases, and determining a first subset of a plurality of taps based on a time domain representation of the one or more signals, with each of the taps corresponding to a different time (See paragraph 8 and paragraph 73 of Wu et al.). Wu et al. also teaches that the information regarding these taps may represent CSI associated with an amplitude and phase of the reference signal at a given time of the tap (See paragraph 25 of Wu et al.). Thus, Wu et al. already teaches representing CSI based on signals corresponding to different times. Contrary to Applicant’s arguments, the channel state of Wu et al. does form a valid channel description according to Wu et al. with the taps corresponding to different times. Therefore, since Wu et al. already teaches forming a CSI based on signals at each of the taps corresponding to a different time, using the time domain beam sweep of Long et al. does not violate the principle of operation of Wu et al. As a result of this conclusion, the previous rejections based on the teachings of Wu et al. and Long et al. are maintained.
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, 12-15, and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (U.S. Publication US 2021/0234587 A1) in view of Long et al. (U.S. Publication US 2023/0141838 A1).
With respect to claim 1, Wu et al. discloses a wireless device comprising: a transceiver; and a processor (See paragraph 52, paragraph 54, and Figure 4 of Wu et al. for reference to a user equipment, UE, which is a wireless device having circuitry to transmit and receive signals, i.e. a transceiver, and a processor). Wu et al. also discloses receiving a first signal on a first channel via the transceiver from a first antenna at a first time period, and determining a first channel state information (CSI) tile responsive to the first signal (See paragraphs 76-77 of Wu et al. for reference to the UE receiving CSI-RS transmitted by a base station, BS, from each of its transmit antennas, which may be virtual antennas, over each subband that the UE receives and then estimates and records a frequency response on each of its receive antennas that results in a CSI structured in a set of matrices with each element of the matrices being a CSI tile, such that CSI-RS received via a first subband via a first virtual antenna equates to the claimed first signal from which the UE determines a first CSI tile). Wu et al. further discloses receiving a second signal on a second channel via the transceiver from a second antenna, and determining a second CSI tile responsive to the second signal (See paragraphs 76-77 of Wu et al. for reference to the UE receiving to the process of transmitting a CSI-RS being performed by each virtual antenna of the BS over each subband, such that CSI-RS received via a second subband via a second virtual antenna equates to the claimed second signal from which the UE determines a second CSI tile). Wu et al. also discloses generate a CSI matrix responsive to the first and second CSI tiles (See paragraphs 77-79 and Figure 8 of Wu et al. for reference to generating CSI matrices based on the CSI estimates performed on the CSI-RS received via each virtual antenna and via each subband). Although cited Wu et al. does disclose a base station transmitting a CSI-RS from each of its transmit antennas over each subband used for communication between the base station and a UE (See paragraph 76-77 of Wu et al.), Wu et al. does not describe any timing specifics of the CSI-RSs. Thus Wu et al. does not disclose receiving a first signal “at a first time period” and a second signal “at a second time period after the first time period”. However, Long et al., in the field of communications, discloses CSI-RS signals being transmitted in a time-domain beam-sweep method such that different narrow beamformed CSI-RS signals are transmitted and received at different times (See paragraph 61 of Long et al.). Long et al. also discloses that using the time-domain beam-sweep method has the advantage of allowing legacy devices with a limited number of CSI-RS ports to achieve performance comparable to devices with 32 CSI-RS ports (See paragraphs 59-61 of Long et al. for reference to this advantage). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Long et al., to combine using a time-domain beam-sweep method of CSI-RS transmission that includes transmitting different CSI-RSs at different time periods, as suggested by Long et al., within the system and method of Wu et al., with the motivation being to allow legacy devices with a limited number of CSI-RS ports to achieve performance comparable to devices with 32 CSI-RS ports.
With respect to claim 12, Wu et al. discloses wherein the first channel has a first bandwidth, and wherein the second channel has a second bandwidth equal to the first bandwidth (See paragraph 76 of Wu et al. for reference to a subband size being at a particular granularity level, such that each subband may have a bandwidth of the same granularity, i.e. size).
With respect to claim 13, Wu et al. discloses wherein the first and second bandwidth are equal to 20 MHz (See paragraph 39 of Wu et al. for reference to embodiments wherein the subbands may be 20 MHz).
With respect to claim 14, Wu et al. discloses wherein the processor is configurable to aggregate the first and second CSI tiles to generate the CSI matrix, and wherein the CSI matrix has a bandwidth that is equivalent to twice the first bandwidth (See paragraphs 78-83 and Figure 8 of Wu et al. for reference to aggregating the CSI estimates of each virtual antenna and each subband into matrices, such that each matrix represents a subband and such that, when using two subbands, the aggregated bandwidth is twice the first bandwidth, i.e. the bandwidth of two subbands).
With respect to claim 15, Wu et al. discloses wherein the CSI matrix is compliant with an IEEE 802.11 standard (See paragraph 27, paragraph 77, and Figure 8 of Wu et al. for reference to embodiments wherein 802.11 wireless technologies are used, such that the system and method of Wu et al. is compliant with an IEEE 802.11 standard).
With respect to claim 19, Wu et al. discloses wherein the first signal comprises orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM) symbols (See paragraph 39 of Wu et al. for reference to embodiments using OFDM, such that the CSI-RS comprises OFDM symbols).
With respect to claim 20, Wu et al. discloses wherein the first antenna corresponds to a first aperture of a multiple-apertures antenna, and the second antenna corresponds to a second aperture of the multiple-apertures antenna (See paragraph 77 of Wu et al. for reference to each virtual antenna being a group of one or more physical antennas, i.e. multiple-apertures, that act as a single antenna).
With respect to claim 21, Wu et al. discloses wherein the first antenna corresponds to a first physical antenna, and the second antenna corresponds to a second physical antenna (See paragraph 77 of Wu et al. for reference to each virtual antenna being a group of one or more physical antennas, such that each virtual antenna may be one physical antenna).
Claims 2, 6-7, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. in view Long et al., and in further view of Kim et al. (U.S. Publication US 2012/0120842 A1).
With respect to claim 2, although Wu et al. does disclose its first and second signals being CSI-RS signals (See paragraph 76-77 of Wu et al.), Wu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the first signal comprises a first portion of a first packet, and wherein the second signal comprises a second portion of the first packet. However, Kim et al., in the field of communications, discloses that CSI-RSs may be transmitted in a data packet including the CSI-RSs with the CSI-RS of each antenna being allocated to a different frequency resource element, i.e. a different channel, such that the CSI-RSs comprise multiple portions of the data packet (See paragraph 19 of Kim et al.). Transmitting CSI-RSs via portions of a data packet has the advantage of allowing CSI estimation to be performed for a packet on multiple antennas and via multiple frequencies. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Kim et al., to combine transmitting CSI-RSs via portions of a data packet, as suggested by Kim et al., within the system and method of Wu et al., with the motivation being to allow CSI estimation to be performed for a packet on multiple antennas and via multiple frequencies.
With respect to claim 6, as shown above in the rejection of claim 2, Kim et al. renders obvious CSI-RSs being transmitted in packets (See paragraph 19 of Kim et al.), such that a CSI-RS may be transmitted via a first packet and a second packet. Additionally, Wu et al. discloses determine the first CSI tile responsive to the first signal and determining the second CSI tile responsive to the second signal (See paragraph 76-77 of Wu et al. for reference to determining CSI values, i.e. tiles, for matrices based on CSI-RSs received via each virtual antenna on each subband), such that in the combination based on the teachings of both Wu et al. and Kim et al., CSI tile estimates are performed on CSI-RSs received via packets.
With respect to claim 7, as shown above in the rejection of claim 2, Kim et al. renders obvious CSI-RSs being transmitted in packets (See paragraph 19 of Kim et al.), such that a CSI-RS may be transmitted via a first packet and a second packet. Additionally, Wu et al. discloses determining the first CSI tile responsive to first subcarrier information of the first signal; and determining the second CSI tile responsive to second subcarrier information of the second signal (See paragraph 76-77 of Wu et al. for reference to determining CSI values, i.e. tiles, for matrices based on CSI-RSs received via each virtual antenna on each subband, i.e. a first subband is first subcarrier information and a second subband is second subcarrier information), such that in the combination based on the teachings of both Wu et al. and Kim et al., CSI tile estimates are performed on CSI-RSs received via packets for each subband.
With respect to claim 9, as shown above in the rejection of claim 2, Kim et al. renders obvious CSI-RSs being transmitted in data packet payloads via multiple frequency resource elements (See paragraph 19 of Kim et al.). Kim et al. also discloses that its reference signals may be types of pilot signals (See paragraph 2 of Kim et al.). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious in view of these teachings of Kim et al. for the same reasons as applied above to claim 2.
With respect to claim 11, as shown above in the rejection of claim 2, Kim et al. renders obvious CSI-RSs being transmitted in data packet payloads via multiple frequency resource elements (See paragraph 19 of Kim et al.). Kim et al. also discloses that its reference signals may be types of pilot signals (See paragraph 2 of Kim et al.). Thus, this claim is rendered obvious in view of these teachings of Kim et al. for the same reasons as applied above to claim 2.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. in view of Long et al. and Kim et al., and in further view of Boudreau et al. (U.S. Publication US 2019/0245726 A1).
With respect to claim 3, as shown above in the rejection of claim 2, Kim et al. renders obvious a CSI-RS being transmitted via a packet (See paragraph 19 of Kim et al.). Although Wu et al. does disclose generating a first CSI tile based on a first subcarrier (See paragraph 76-77 of Wu et al. for reference to determining CSI values, i.e. tiles, for matrices based on CSI-RSs received via each virtual antenna on each subband, i.e. a first subband is first subcarrier information and a second subband is second subcarrier information), Wu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the processor is configurable to generate the first CSI tile responsive to a first subcarrier information in a physical layer (PHY) preamble of the packet.
With respect to claim 4, as shown above in the rejection of claim 2, Kim et al. renders obvious a CSI-RS being transmitted via a packet (See paragraph 19 of Kim et al.). Although Wu et al. does disclose generating a first CSI tile based on a first subcarrier (See paragraph 76-77 of Wu et al. for reference to determining CSI values, i.e. tiles, for matrices based on CSI-RSs received via each virtual antenna on each subband, i.e. a first subband is first subcarrier information and a second subband is second subcarrier information), Wu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the processor is configurable to generate the first CSI tile responsive to a first subcarrier information in a physical layer (PHY) header of the packet.
With respect to claim 5, as shown above in the rejection of claim 2, Kim et al. renders obvious a CSI-RS being transmitted via a packet (See paragraph 19 of Kim et al.). Although Wu et al. does disclose generating a first CSI tile based on a first subcarrier (See paragraph 76-77 of Wu et al. for reference to determining CSI values, i.e. tiles, for matrices based on CSI-RSs received via each virtual antenna on each subband, i.e. a first subband is first subcarrier information and a second subband is second subcarrier information), Wu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the processor is configurable to generate the first CSI tile responsive to a first subcarrier information in media access control (MAC) header of the packet.
With further respect to claim 3-5, Boudreau et al., in the field of communications, discloses embodiments wherein subcarrier information of packets may be carried in multiple different locations including a physical layer preamble and header and a Wi-Fi MAC header (See paragraph 23, paragraph 98, and Figures 4B and 7B of Boudreau et al.). Including subcarrier information in packets has the advantage of allowing devices receiving the packets to know the specific subcarrier index used for each subcarrier. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Boudreau et al., to combine including subcarrier information in packets, as suggested by Boudreau et al., within the system and method of Wu et al., with the motivation being to allow CSI estimation to be allow devices receiving the packets to know the specific subcarrier index used for each subcarrier.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. in view of Long et al. and Kim et al., and in further view of Shida et al. (U.S. Publication US 2008/0267133 A1).
With respect to claim 8, Wu et al. does not specifically disclose determining the second CSI tile responsive to a long training field (LTF) of the second packet. However, Shida et al., in the field of communications, discloses determining channel estimates, i.e. CSI tiles, for each of multiple antennas using LTFs of a packet (See paragraph 73 and Figure 7 of Shida et al.). Using LTFs of a packet to determine channel estimates has the advantage of allowing channel estimation to be performed for multiple antennas on each of multiple different subcarriers (See paragraph 73 of Shida et al.). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Shida et al., to combine using LTFs of a packet to determine channel estimates, as suggested by Shida et al., within the system and method of Wu et al., with the motivation being to allow CSI estimation to be allow channel estimation to be performed for multiple antennas on each of multiple different subcarriers.
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. in view of Long et al. and Kim et al., and in further view of Huang et al. (U.S. Publication US 2023/0189027 A1).
With respect to claim 10, Wu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the first signal comprises a packet directed to another device.
With respect to claim 18, Wu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the first signal comprises an unpredicted packet.
With further respect to claims 10 and 18, Huang et al., in the field of communications, discloses determining CSI information based on CSI-RS transmissions overheard between a other devices, such that the CSI-RS transmissions are unpredicted packets transmitted between the other devices (See paragraph 165 and Figure 5 of Huang et al.). Determining CSI information based on CSI-RS transmissions overheard between a other devices has the advantage of allowing CSI to be determined by a device without having to set up explicit signaling between the device and a transmission source. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Huang et al., to combine determining CSI information based on CSI-RS transmissions overheard between a other devices, as suggested by Huang et al., within the system and method of Wu et al., with the motivation being to allow CSI estimation to be allow CSI to be determined by a device without having to set up explicit signaling between the device and a transmission source.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. in view of Long et al., and in further view of Um et al. (U.S. Patent US 11,271,629 B1).
With respect to claim 16, Wu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the first signal comprises an access point (AP) beacon frame. However, Um et al., in the field of communications, discloses using Wi-Fi beacon signals sent by an AP to determine CSI data (See column 6 lines 4-22 of Um et al.). Using AP beacon signals has the advantage of allowing CSI data to be determined from already used signaling within Wi-Fi networks. Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Um et al., to combine using AP beacon signals, as suggested by Um et al., within the system and method of Wu et al., with the motivation being to allow CSI data to be determined from already used signaling within Wi-Fi networks.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. in view of Long et al., and in further view of Fort et al. (U.S. Publication US 2020/0191899 A1).
With respect to claim 17, Wu et al. does not specifically disclose wherein the wireless device is configurable to switch from the first channel to the second channel during a first period of time, and wherein the processor is configurable to disregard information received during the first period of time. However, Fort et al., in the field of communications, discloses every time an antenna switches, introducing a switching transient, i.e. a period of time, during which some number of signals may be ignored (See paragraph 29 of Fort et al.). Ignoring a number of signals during an antenna switch transient time has the advantage of allowing transient effects to settle before estimates are made (See paragraph 29 of Fort et al.). Thus, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing, when presented with the work of Fort et al., to combine ignoring a number of signals during an antenna switch transient time, as suggested by Fort et al., within the system and method of Wu et al., with the motivation being to allow transient effects to settle before estimates are made.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Jason E Mattis whose telephone number is (571)272-3154. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00am-4:30pm.
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, Huy Vu can be reached at 571-2723155. 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.
/JASON E MATTIS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights