DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the application filed on 26 December 2023, having claims 1-20 and drawing figures 1-5.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 8, and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 10,715,193 B2).
For claims 1 and 8, Zhu discloses a system (Fig 9, system 900 implements eNB) for adaptive beamforming, the system comprising: one or more processors (Fig 9, processor(s) 940); and one or more computer-readable media (Fig 9, NVM storage 930) storing computer-usable instructions (Fig 9, NVM storage 930 comprises instructions 935) that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to:
receive a device-type identifier for a first device (column 16, lines 5-7, eNB 130 receives an indication message from a first UE (Fig 1, UE 110), wherein the indication message comprises the receiver type of the first UE) based on the first device-type identifier, identify a first beamforming technique to utilize for the first (column 16, lines 8-15, wherein the eNB selects a beamforming scheme based on the receiver type of the first UE 110, wherein one of the beamforming schemes comprises MMSE).
For claims 1 and 8, Zhu does not expressly disclose receiving a second device-type identifier for a second device; and based on the second device-type identifier, identify a second beamforming technique to utilize for the second device, wherein the second beamforming technique is different from the first beamforming technique.
However, Zhu discloses a MU-MIMO system comprising an eNB serving a first UE 110 comprising a first type of receiver (MMSE receiver) and a second UE 120 comprising a second type of receiver (MMSE-IRC receiver) (column 5, lines 8-11), wherein the eNB selects a first beamforming scheme (e.g., MMSE) to communicate with the first UE and a second beamforming scheme (e.g., MMSE-IRC) to communicate with the second UE (column 5, lines 11-15). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled that the eNB of Zhu is configured to receive a second device type-identifier from the second UE (UE 120) to determine which beamforming scheme to use to communicate with the second UE based on the teachings of Zhu at the time of the invention.
For claims 3 and 10, Zhu discloses the first beamforming technique is a minimum mean squared error (MMSE) (column 16, lines 8-15, wherein the eNB selects a beamforming scheme based on the receiver type of the first UE 110, wherein one of the beamforming schemes comprises MMSE).
For claims 4 and 11, Zhu does not expressly disclose the second beamforming technique is Eigen Based Beamforming (EBB). However, Zhu discloses other types of beamforming schemes may be selected for communication with the UE(s) in addition to MMSE and MMSE-IRC beamforming schemes (column 8, lines 31-35). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art that Eigen Based Beamforming (EBB) may be used to communicate with the UE based on the UE capability (i.e., receiver-type-identifier) based on the teachings of Zhu at the time of the invention.
4. Claims 5-7 and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 10,715,193 B2) in view of Ko et al. (US 2015/0318908 A1).
For claims 5 and 12, Zhu does not expressly disclose the one or more processors is further configured to receive one or more channel state information (CSI) indicators from each of the first device and the second device.
Ko, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches a base station configured to receive one or more channel state information (CSI) indicators (CSI reports) from one or more UEs and selecting an appropriate horizontal beamforming method for communication with the UE(s) based on the reported CSI(s) [0207]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the base station of Zhu to select the beamforming technique for the first and second devices based on the received CSI report from each device based on the teachings of Ko at the time of the invention.
For claims 6 and 13, Ko discloses the CSI indicators comprise channel quality indicators (CQI) ([0207] the selected horizontal or vertical beamforming method may be adjusted based on the CSI reports which comprise PMI or CQI information).
For claims 7 and 14, Ko discloses the one or more processors is further configured to adjust beamforming based on the CQI ([0207] the selected horizontal or vertical beamforming method may be adjusted based on the CSI reports which comprise PMI or CQI information).
Allowable Subject Matter
5. Claims 2 and 9 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.
6. Claims 15-20 are allowed. The closest prior art reference is Zhu et al. (US 10,715,193 B2).
7. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
For claims 15-20, the prior art fails to teach or render obvious a combination of:
receive a first device-type identifier for a first device, wherein the first device-type identifier indicates the first device is a mobile device;
based on the first device-type identifier, selecting a first beamforming technique to broadcast to the first device;
identify that the first device has remained on a first beam for a predetermined period of time;
determine that the first device is stationary based on its presence on the first beam greater than the predetermined period of time; and
dynamically adjust a set of beamforming techniques offered to the first device to include both the first beamforming technique and a second beamforming technique.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM ET.
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471