Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
The preliminary amendment filed 5/10/2024 has been entered.
Claims 21-38 are pending.
Claims 21-38 stand rejected.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,615,851 in view of Monogioudis et al. (Pub. No.: US 20100009717 A1), hereafter referred to as Monogioudis.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite A method of transmitting a data stream to a mobile terminal in a communications network including a plurality of transmitting sites, comprising: designating at least two of the plurality of transmitting sites as cooperating sites, each cooperating site comprising at least two antennas; receiving a precoder report from the mobile terminal for each cooperating site wherein the precoder report is selected from a precoder set; and at each cooperating site, transmitting the data stream to the mobile terminal using a beam formed by the cooperating site's antennas.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,615,851 fails to clearly recite wherein the precoder report for each cooperating site is independent of the precoder report for the other cooperating sites.
Monogioudis teaches wherein the precoder report for each cooperating site is independent of the precoder report for the other cooperating sites (The first precoder weight of the mobile station
W
100
p
220
may be different than the second precoder weight
W
100
p
210
since the precoder weights correspond to the two independent channels from the two base stations, Para. 24, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Monogioudis with the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,615,851 since Monogioudis provides a technique for base stations to perform joint beamforming, which can be introduced in the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,615,851 to permit transmitting sites to cooperate more efficiently through joint beamforming.
Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 10,615,851 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite at one or more of the cooperating sites, applying a phase adjustment to the transmission.
Claim 30 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,615,851 in view of Monogioudis et al. (Pub. No.: US 20100009717 A1), hereafter referred to as Monogioudis.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite A communications system comprising: a plurality of transmitting sites, at least two of the plurality of the transmitting sites designated as cooperating sites and configured to transmit a data stream to a mobile terminal, each cooperating site comprising at least two antennas and further configured to: receive a precoder report from the mobile terminal for each cooperating site wherein the precoder report is selected from a precoder set; and transmit the data stream to the mobile terminal using a beam formed by the cooperating site's antennas.
Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,615,851 fails to clearly recite wherein the precoder report for each cooperating site is independent of the precoder report for the other cooperating sites.
Monogioudis teaches wherein the precoder report for each cooperating site is independent of the precoder report for the other cooperating sites (The first precoder weight of the mobile station
W
100
p
220
may be different than the second precoder weight
W
100
p
210
since the precoder weights correspond to the two independent channels from the two base stations, Para. 24, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Monogioudis with the limitations of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,615,851 since Monogioudis provides a technique for base stations to perform joint beamforming, which can be introduced in the limitations of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,615,851 to permit transmitting sites to cooperate more efficiently through joint beamforming.
Claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 10,615,851 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite one or more of the cooperating sites is further configured to apply a phase adjustment to the transmission.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 in view of Monogioudis et al. (Pub. No.: US 20100009717 A1), hereafter referred to as Monogioudis.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite A method of transmitting a data stream to a mobile terminal in a communications network including a plurality of transmitting sites, comprising: designating at least two of the plurality of transmitting sites as cooperating sites, each cooperating site comprising at least two antennas; receiving a precoder report from the mobile terminal for each cooperating site; and at each cooperating site, transmitting the data stream to the mobile terminal using a beam formed by the cooperating site's antennas.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 fails to clearly recite wherein the precoder report is selected from a precoder set and wherein the precoder report for each cooperating site is independent of the precoder report for the other cooperating sites.
Monogioudis teaches wherein the precoder report is selected from a precoder set (A Nominal Precoder Matrix that is known by a mobile station 100 allows the mobile station 100 to calculate the precoder weights communicated to the base station 210 and 220. The Nominal Precoder Matrix may be a unitary matrix or any other matrix that is a-priori known to both the mobile station 100 and base stations 210 and 210. In many instances, the Nominal Precoder Matrix is downloadable to the mobile station upon network entry, Para. 20, FIG. 1. The elements of the joint channel matrix are the feedback precoder weights, Para. 28, FIG. 1) and wherein the precoder report for each cooperating site is independent of the precoder report for the other cooperating sites (The first precoder weight of the mobile station
W
100
p
220
may be different than the second precoder weight
W
100
p
210
since the precoder weights correspond to the two independent channels from the two base stations, Para. 24, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Monogioudis with the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 since Monogioudis provides a technique for base stations to perform joint beamforming, which can be introduced in the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 to permit transmitting sites to cooperate more efficiently through joint beamforming.
Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite at one or more of the cooperating sites, applying a phase adjustment to the transmission.
Claim 23 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 4 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite the phase adjustment is a frequency selective phase adjustment.
Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite the precoder set for each cooperating site is the same as the precoder set for a single site transmission.
Claim 25 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 6 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite at each cooperating site, transmitting a common pilot signal, wherein the common pilot signal at each cooperating site is orthogonal to the common pilot signal of the other cooperating sites.
Claim 26 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 7 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite the common pilot signal is used by the mobile terminal for selecting a pre-coder for each cooperating site.
Claim 27 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 8 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite at each cooperating site, transmitting a superposition dedicated pilot.
Claim 28 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 9 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite the superposition dedicated pilot is used by the mobile terminal for demodulation of the transmitted data stream.
Claim 29 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 10 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite the communications network is a long term evolution network.
Claim 30 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 in view of Monogioudis et al. (Pub. No.: US 20100009717 A1), hereafter referred to as Monogioudis.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite A communications system comprising: a plurality of transmitting sites, at least two of the plurality of the transmitting sites designated as cooperating sites and configured to transmit a data stream to a mobile terminal, each cooperating site comprising at least two antennas and further configured to: receive a precoder report from the mobile terminal for each cooperating site; and transmit the data stream to the mobile terminal using a beam formed by the cooperating site's antennas..
Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 fails to clearly recite wherein the precoder report is selected from a precoder set and wherein the precoder report for each cooperating site is independent of the precoder report for the other cooperating sites.
Monogioudis teaches wherein the precoder report is selected from a precoder set (A Nominal Precoder Matrix that is known by a mobile station 100 allows the mobile station 100 to calculate the precoder weights communicated to the base station 210 and 220. The Nominal Precoder Matrix may be a unitary matrix or any other matrix that is a-priori known to both the mobile station 100 and base stations 210 and 210. In many instances, the Nominal Precoder Matrix is downloadable to the mobile station upon network entry, Para. 20, FIG. 1. The elements of the joint channel matrix are the feedback precoder weights, Para. 28, FIG. 1) and wherein the precoder report for each cooperating site is independent of the precoder report for the other cooperating sites (The first precoder weight of the mobile station
W
100
p
220
may be different than the second precoder weight
W
100
p
210
since the precoder weights correspond to the two independent channels from the two base stations, Para. 24, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Monogioudis with the limitations of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 since Monogioudis provides a technique for base stations to perform joint beamforming, which can be introduced in the limitations of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 to permit transmitting sites to cooperate more efficiently through joint beamforming.
Claim 31 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 13 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite the precoder set for each cooperating site is the same as the precoder set for single site transmission.
Claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 14 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite one or more of the cooperating sites is further configured to apply a phase adjustment to the transmission.
Claim 33 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 15 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite the phase adjustment is a frequency selective phase adjustment.
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 16 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite each cooperating site is further configured to transmit a common pilot signal, wherein the common pilot signal at each cooperating site is orthogonal to the common pilot signal of the other cooperating sites.
Claim 35 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 17 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite the common pilot signal is used by the mobile terminal for selecting a pre-coder for each cooperating site.
Claim 36 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite each cooperating site is further configured to transmit a superposition dedicated pilot.
Claim 37 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 19 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite the superposition dedicated pilot is used by the mobile terminal for demodulation of the transmitted data stream.
Claim 38 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 20 of U.S. Patent No. 8,693,442 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite the communications system is a long term evolution network.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,876,579 in view of Monogioudis et al. (Pub. No.: US 20100009717 A1), hereafter referred to as Monogioudis.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite A method of transmitting a data stream to a mobile terminal in a communications network including a plurality of transmitting sites, comprising: receiving a precoder report from the mobile terminal for each cooperating site; and at each cooperating site, transmitting the data stream to the mobile terminal using a beam formed by the cooperating site's antennas.
Claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,876,579 fails to clearly recite designating at least two of the plurality of transmitting sites as cooperating sites, each cooperating site comprising at least two antennas; wherein the precoder report is selected from a precoder set and wherein the precoder report for each cooperating site is independent of the precoder report for the other cooperating sites.
Monogioudis teaches designating at least two of the plurality of transmitting sites as cooperating sites (Referring to FIG. 1, the MIMO system includes a base station 210, and a controlling base station 220. The controlling base station 220 may include a joint beamformer 225, Para. 19, FIG. 1. As shown in FIG. 1, the controlling base station 220 communicates portion of the joint beamforming weight W(2) to base station 210, Para. 28, FIG. 1), each cooperating site comprising at least two antennas (use of multiple antennas at a base station, Para. 4, FIG. 1).
Monogioudis teaches wherein the precoder report is selected from a precoder set (A Nominal Precoder Matrix that is known by a mobile station 100 allows the mobile station 100 to calculate the precoder weights communicated to the base station 210 and 220. The Nominal Precoder Matrix may be a unitary matrix or any other matrix that is a-priori known to both the mobile station 100 and base stations 210 and 210. In many instances, the Nominal Precoder Matrix is downloadable to the mobile station upon network entry, Para. 20, FIG. 1. The elements of the joint channel matrix are the feedback precoder weights, Para. 28, FIG. 1) and wherein the precoder report for each cooperating site is independent of the precoder report for the other cooperating sites (The first precoder weight of the mobile station
W
100
p
220
may be different than the second precoder weight
W
100
p
210
since the precoder weights correspond to the two independent channels from the two base stations, Para. 24, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Monogioudis with the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,876,579 since Monogioudis provides a technique for base stations to perform joint beamforming, which can be introduced in the limitations of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,876,579 to permit transmitting sites to cooperate more efficiently through joint beamforming.
Claim 22 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 11,876,579 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite at one or more of the cooperating sites, applying a phase adjustment to the transmission.
Claim 30 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,876,579 in view of Monogioudis et al. (Pub. No.: US 20100009717 A1), hereafter referred to as Monogioudis.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite A communications system comprising: a plurality of transmitting sites, further configured to: receive a precoder report from the mobile terminal for each cooperating site; and transmit the data stream to the mobile terminal using a beam formed by the cooperating site's antennas.
Claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,876,579 fails to clearly recite at least two of the plurality of the transmitting sites designated as cooperating sites and configured to transmit a data stream to a mobile terminal, each cooperating site comprising at least two antennas: wherein the precoder report is selected from a precoder set and wherein the precoder report for each cooperating site is independent of the precoder report for the other cooperating sites.
Monogioudis teaches at least two of the plurality of the transmitting sites designated as cooperating sites (Referring to FIG. 1, the MIMO system includes a base station 210, and a controlling base station 220. The controlling base station 220 may include a joint beamformer 225, Para. 19, FIG. 1. As shown in FIG. 1, the controlling base station 220 communicates portion of the joint beamforming weight W(2) to base station 210, Para. 28, FIG. 1) and configured to transmit a data stream to a mobile terminal (communicate with the mobile station 100, Para. 22, FIG. 1), each cooperating site comprising at least two antennas (use of multiple antennas at a base station, Para. 4, FIG. 1).
Monogioudis teaches wherein the precoder report is selected from a precoder set (A Nominal Precoder Matrix that is known by a mobile station 100 allows the mobile station 100 to calculate the precoder weights communicated to the base station 210 and 220. The Nominal Precoder Matrix may be a unitary matrix or any other matrix that is a-priori known to both the mobile station 100 and base stations 210 and 210. In many instances, the Nominal Precoder Matrix is downloadable to the mobile station upon network entry, Para. 20, FIG. 1. The elements of the joint channel matrix are the feedback precoder weights, Para. 28, FIG. 1) and wherein the precoder report for each cooperating site is independent of the precoder report for the other cooperating sites (The first precoder weight of the mobile station
W
100
p
220
may be different than the second precoder weight
W
100
p
210
since the precoder weights correspond to the two independent channels from the two base stations, Para. 24, FIG. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Monogioudis with the limitations of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,876,579 since Monogioudis provides a technique for base stations to perform joint beamforming, which can be introduced in the limitations of claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,876,579 to permit transmitting sites to cooperate more efficiently through joint beamforming.
Claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,876,579 in view of Monogioudis. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both conflicting claims recite at one or more of the cooperating sites, applying a phase adjustment to the transmission.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(e) the invention was described in (1) an application for patent, published under section 122(b), by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent or (2) a patent granted on an application for patent by another filed in the United States before the invention by the applicant for patent, except that an international application filed under the treaty defined in section 351(a) shall have the effects for purposes of this subsection of an application filed in the United States only if the international application designated the United States and was published under Article 21(2) of such treaty in the English language.
Claim(s) 21, 24 and 30-31 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) as being anticipated by Monogioudis et al. (Pub. No.: US 20100009717 A1), hereafter referred to as Monogioudis.
In regard to Claim 21, Monogioudis teaches A method of transmitting a data stream to a mobile terminal (mobile station 100, Para. 19, FIG. 1) in a communications network including a plurality of transmitting sites (the MIMO system includes more than two base stations, Para. 19, FIG. 1), comprising: designating at least two of the plurality of transmitting sites as cooperating sites (Referring to FIG. 1, the MIMO system includes a base station 210, and a controlling base station 220. The controlling base station 220 may include a joint beamformer 225, Para. 19, FIG. 1. As shown in FIG. 1, the controlling base station 220 communicates portion of the joint beamforming weight W(2) to base station 210, Para. 28, FIG. 1), each cooperating site comprising at least two antennas (use of multiple antennas at a base station, Para. 4, FIG. 1).
Monogioudis teaches receiving a precoder report from the mobile terminal for each cooperating site (The mobile station 100 provides precoder weights to a plurality of base stations. A Nominal Precoder Matrix that is known by a mobile station 100 allows the mobile station 100 to calculate the precoder weights communicated to the base station 210 and 220, Para. 20, FIG. 1) wherein the precoder report is selected from a precoder set (A Nominal Precoder Matrix that is known by a mobile station 100 allows the mobile station 100 to calculate the precoder weights communicated to the base station 210 and 220. The Nominal Precoder Matrix may be a unitary matrix or any other matrix that is a-priori known to both the mobile station 100 and base stations 210 and 210. In many instances, the Nominal Precoder Matrix is downloadable to the mobile station upon network entry, Para. 20, FIG. 1. The elements of the joint channel matrix are the feedback precoder weights, Para. 28, FIG. 1) and wherein the precoder report for each cooperating site is independent of the precoder report for the other cooperating sites (The first precoder weight of the mobile station
W
100
p
220
may be different than the second precoder weight
W
100
p
210
since the precoder weights correspond to the two independent channels from the two base stations, Para. 24, FIG. 1).
Monogioudis teaches at each cooperating site, transmitting the data stream to the mobile terminal using a beam formed by the cooperating site's antennas (the controlling base station 220 may include the joint beamformer 225. The joint beamformer 225 controls beamforming across multiple base stations, Para. 25, FIG. 1. The beamforming weights may be used by base stations of the MIMO system to control communications with the mobiles stations. As shown in FIG. 1, the controlling base station 220 communicates portion of the joint beamforming weight W(2) to base station 210. The base station 210 then uses the beamforming weight W(2) to control communications sent to the mobile station 100, Para. 28, FIG. 1).
In regard to Claim 24, Monogioudis teaches the precoder set for each cooperating site is the same as the precoder set for a single site transmission (The Nominal Precoder Matrix may be a unitary matrix or any other matrix that is a-priori known to both the mobile station 100 and base stations 210 and 210. In many instances, the Nominal Precoder Matrix is downloadable to the mobile station upon network entry, Para. 20, FIG. 1).
In regard to Claim 30, Monogioudis teaches A communications system comprising: a plurality of transmitting sites (the MIMO system includes more than two base stations, Para. 19, FIG. 1), at least two of the plurality of the transmitting sites designated as cooperating sites (Referring to FIG. 1, the MIMO system includes a base station 210, and a controlling base station 220. The controlling base station 220 may include a joint beamformer 225, Para. 19, FIG. 1. As shown in FIG. 1, the controlling base station 220 communicates portion of the joint beamforming weight W(2) to base station 210, Para. 28, FIG. 1) and configured to transmit a data stream to a mobile terminal (communicate with the mobile station 100, Para. 22, FIG. 1), each cooperating site comprising at least two antennas (use of multiple antennas at a base station, Para. 4, FIG. 1).
Monogioudis teaches and further configured to: receive a precoder report from the mobile terminal for each cooperating site (The mobile station 100 provides precoder weights to a plurality of base stations. A Nominal Precoder Matrix that is known by a mobile station 100 allows the mobile station 100 to calculate the precoder weights communicated to the base station 210 and 220, Para. 20, FIG. 1) wherein the precoder report is selected from a precoder set (A Nominal Precoder Matrix that is known by a mobile station 100 allows the mobile station 100 to calculate the precoder weights communicated to the base station 210 and 220. The Nominal Precoder Matrix may be a unitary matrix or any other matrix that is a-priori known to both the mobile station 100 and base stations 210 and 210. In many instances, the Nominal Precoder Matrix is downloadable to the mobile station upon network entry, Para. 20, FIG. 1. The elements of the joint channel matrix are the feedback precoder weights, Para. 28, FIG. 1) and wherein the precoder report for each cooperating site is independent of the precoder report for the other cooperating sites (The first precoder weight of the mobile station
W
100
p
220
may be different than the second precoder weight
W
100
p
210
since the precoder weights correspond to the two independent channels from the two base stations, Para. 24, FIG. 1).
Monogioudis teaches transmit the data stream to the mobile terminal using a beam formed by the cooperating site's antennas (the controlling base station 220 may include the joint beamformer 225. The joint beamformer 225 controls beamforming across multiple base stations, Para. 25, FIG. 1. The beamforming weights may be used by base stations of the MIMO system to control communications with the mobiles stations. As shown in FIG. 1, the controlling base station 220 communicates portion of the joint beamforming weight W(2) to base station 210. The base station 210 then uses the beamforming weight W(2) to control communications sent to the mobile station 100, Para. 28, FIG. 1).
In regard to Claim 31, Monogioudis teaches the precoder set for each cooperating site is the same as the precoder set for single site transmission (The Nominal Precoder Matrix may be a unitary matrix or any other matrix that is a-priori known to both the mobile station 100 and base stations 210 and 210. In many instances, the Nominal Precoder Matrix is downloadable to the mobile station upon network entry, Para. 20, FIG. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
Claim 22-23 and 32-33 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monogioudis in view of Fukuoka et al. (Pub. No.: US 20090103648 A1), hereafter referred to as Fukuoka.
In regard to Claim 22, as presented in the rejection of Claim 21, Monogioudis teaches the cooperating sites.
Monogioudis fails to teach at one or more of the cooperating sites, applying a phase adjustment to the transmission.
Fukuoka teaches at one or more of the cooperating sites, applying a phase adjustment to the transmission (base station BSA applies a phase rotation at a phase rotation angles (Φ1 and Φ2) to pilot symbols P1 and P2, and the same data symbols S1 and S1'. The phase rotation difference between pilot symbols P1 and P2 and the phase rotation difference between data symbols S1 and S1' are both ΦA=Φ2-Φ1, Para. 68, FIG. 5A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Fukuoka with the teachings of Monogioudis since Fukuoka provides a technique for phase rotation of signals in an arraignment involving a mobile station in the coverage of two base stations, which can be introduced into the system of Monogioudis to permit a base station to alter signal transmissions toward a mobile with respect to signals of a neighboring base station for improving communications with the mobile station.
In regard to Claim 23, as presented in the rejection of Claim 21, Monogioudis teaches the method.
Monogioudis fails to teach the phase adjustment is a frequency selective phase adjustment.
Fukuoka teaches the phase adjustment is a frequency selective phase adjustment (in OFDM, cases occur where quality varies significantly per subcarrier due to frequency selective fading caused by multipath, Para. 4. a base station applies phase rotation such that phase rotation difference between a plurality of the same symbols generated by repetition, Para. 41. Base station BSA applies phase rotation to a plurality of the same symbols generated by repetition, Para. 44. A plurality of the same data symbols generated by repetition are mapped to neighboring subcarriers (frequency domain mapping), Para. 83).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Fukuoka with the teachings of Monogioudis since Fukuoka provides a technique for phase rotation of signals in an arraignment involving a mobile station in the coverage of two base stations, which can be introduced into the system of Monogioudis to permit a base station to alter signal transmissions toward a mobile with respect to signals of a neighboring base station for improving communications with the mobile station.
In regard to Claim 32, as presented in the rejection of Claim 30, Monogioudis teaches the cooperating sites.
Monogioudis fails to teach one or more of the cooperating sites is further configured to apply a phase adjustment to the transmission.
Fukuoka teaches one or more of the cooperating sites is further configured to apply a phase adjustment to the transmission (base station BSA applies a phase rotation at a phase rotation angles (Φ1 and Φ2) to pilot symbols P1 and P2, and the same data symbols S1 and S1'. The phase rotation difference between pilot symbols P1 and P2 and the phase rotation difference between data symbols S1 and S1' are both ΦA=Φ2-Φ1, Para. 68, FIG. 5A).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Fukuoka with the teachings of Monogioudis since Fukuoka provides a technique for phase rotation of signals in an arraignment involving a mobile station in the coverage of two base stations, which can be introduced into the system of Monogioudis to permit a base station to alter signal transmissions toward a mobile with respect to signals of a neighboring base station for improving communications with the mobile station.
In regard to Claim 33, as presented in the rejection of Claim 30, Monogioudis teaches the communications system.
Monogioudis fails to teach the phase adjustment is a frequency selective phase adjustment.
Fukuoka teaches the phase adjustment is a frequency selective phase adjustment (in OFDM, cases occur where quality varies significantly per subcarrier due to frequency selective fading caused by multipath, Para. 4. a base station applies phase rotation such that phase rotation difference between a plurality of the same symbols generated by repetition, Para. 41. Base station BSA applies phase rotation to a plurality of the same symbols generated by repetition, Para. 44. A plurality of the same data symbols generated by repetition are mapped to neighboring subcarriers (frequency domain mapping), Para. 83).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Fukuoka with the teachings of Monogioudis since Fukuoka provides a technique for phase rotation of signals in an arraignment involving a mobile station in the coverage of two base stations, which can be introduced into the system of Monogioudis to permit a base station to alter signal transmissions toward a mobile with respect to signals of a neighboring base station for improving communications with the mobile station.
Claims 25-26 and 34-35 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monogioudis in view Attar et al. (Pub. No.: US 20070195908 A1), hereafter referred to as Attar.
In regard to Claim 25, as presented in the rejection of Claim 21, Monogioudis teaches a cooperating site.
Monogioudis fails to teach at each cooperating site, transmitting a common pilot signal, wherein the common pilot signal at each cooperating site is orthogonal to the common pilot signal of the other cooperating sites.
Attar teaches at each cooperating site, transmitting a common pilot signal, wherein the common pilot signal at each cooperating site is orthogonal to the common pilot signal of the other cooperating sites (preferred beam pattern(s) for the forward link based on common spatial pilots, Para. 103. OFDM and SC-FDM partition the available bandwidth into multiple orthogonal subcarriers, Para. 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Attar with the teachings of Monogioudis since Attar provides a technique for managing wireless resources, which can be introduced into the system of Monogioudis to ensure the appropriate resource processes are utilized for a terminal receiving signals from multiple base stations.
In regard to Claim 26, as presented in the rejection of Claim 21, Monogioudis teaches the mobile terminal.
Monogioudis fails to teach the common pilot signal is used by the mobile terminal for selecting a pre-coder for each cooperating site.
Attar teaches the common pilot signal is used by the mobile terminal for selecting a pre-coder for each cooperating site (preferred beam pattern(s) for the forward link based on common spatial pilots, Para. 103. OFDM and SC-FDM partition the available bandwidth into multiple orthogonal subcarriers, Para. 104. The codebook design for multi-antenna operation, including SDMA and MIMO, different modes may be supported simultaneously. The codebook may be segmented into multiple sets, such as precoding transmission set, Para. 111).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Attar with the teachings of Monogioudis since Attar provides a technique for managing wireless resources, which can be introduced into the system of Monogioudis to ensure the appropriate resource processes are utilized for a terminal receiving signals from multiple base stations.
In regard to Claim 34, as presented in the rejection of Claim 30, Monogioudis teaches a cooperating site.
Monogioudis fails to teach each cooperating site is further configured to transmit a common pilot signal, wherein the common pilot signal at each cooperating site is orthogonal to the common pilot signal of the other cooperating sites.
Attar teaches at each cooperating site is further configured to transmit a common pilot signal, wherein the common pilot signal at each cooperating site is orthogonal to the common pilot signal of the other cooperating sites (preferred beam pattern(s) for the forward link based on common spatial pilots, Para. 103. OFDM and SC-FDM partition the available bandwidth into multiple orthogonal subcarriers, Para. 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Attar with the teachings of Monogioudis since Attar provides a technique for managing wireless resources, which can be introduced into the system of Monogioudis to ensure the appropriate resource processes are utilized for a terminal receiving signals from multiple base stations.
In regard to Claim 35, as presented in the rejection of Claim 30, Monogioudis teaches the mobile terminal.
Monogioudis fails to teach the common pilot signal is used by the mobile terminal for selecting a pre-coder for each cooperating site.
Attar teaches the common pilot signal is used by the mobile terminal for selecting a pre-coder for each cooperating site (preferred beam pattern(s) for the forward link based on common spatial pilots, Para. 103. OFDM and SC-FDM partition the available bandwidth into multiple orthogonal subcarriers, Para. 104. The codebook design for multi-antenna operation, including SDMA and MIMO, different modes may be supported simultaneously. The codebook may be segmented into multiple sets, such as precoding transmission set, Para. 111).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Attar with the teachings of Monogioudis since Attar provides a technique for managing wireless resources, which can be introduced into the system of Monogioudis to ensure the appropriate resource processes are utilized for a terminal receiving signals from multiple base stations.
Claims 27-28 and 36-37 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monogioudis in view of Kiran et al. (Pub. No.: US 20070250638 A1), hereafter referred to as Kiran.
In regard to Claim 27, as presented in the rejection of Claim 21, Monogioudis teaches a cooperating site.
Monogioudis fails to teach at each cooperating site, transmitting a superposition dedicated pilot.
Kiran teaches at each cooperating site, transmitting a superposition dedicated pilot (The output of summer 520 is input to multiplexer 524 along with an 1xEV-DO pilot, a MAC and a preamble signal to produce the superposition coded packet, Para. 123, FIG. 9B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Kiran with the teachings of Monogioudis since Kiran provides a technique for superposition involving an 1xEV-DO pilot, which can be introduced into the system of Monogioudis to permit efficient utilization of wireless resources by base stations.
In regard to Claim 28, as presented in the rejection of Claim 21, Monogioudis teaches the mobile terminal.
Monogioudis fails to teach the superposition dedicated pilot is used by the mobile terminal for demodulation of the transmitted data stream.
Kiran teaches the superposition dedicated pilot is used by the mobile terminal for demodulation of the transmitted data stream (The pilot channel is used to aid in the demodulation of the signal at the receiver end, Para. 127, FIG. 9B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Kiran with the teachings of Monogioudis since Kiran provides a technique for superposition involving an 1xEV-DO pilot, which can be introduced into the system of Monogioudis to permit efficient utilization of wireless resources by base stations.
In regard to Claim 36, as presented in the rejection of Claim 30, Monogioudis teaches a cooperating site.
Monogioudis fails to teach each cooperating site is further configured to transmit a superposition dedicated pilot.
Kiran teaches each cooperating site is further configured to transmit a superposition dedicated pilot (The output of summer 520 is input to multiplexer 524 along with an 1xEV-DO pilot, a MAC and a preamble signal to produce the superposition coded packet, Para. 123, FIG. 9B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Kiran with the teachings of Monogioudis since Kiran provides a technique for superposition involving an 1xEV-DO pilot, which can be introduced into the system of Monogioudis to permit efficient utilization of wireless resources by base stations.
In regard to Claim 37, as presented in the rejection of Claim 30, Monogioudis teaches the mobile terminal.
Monogioudis fails to teach the superposition dedicated pilot is used by the mobile terminal for demodulation of the transmitted data stream.
Kiran teaches the superposition dedicated pilot is used by the mobile terminal for demodulation of the transmitted data stream (The pilot channel is used to aid in the demodulation of the signal at the receiver end, Para. 127, FIG. 9B).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Kiran with the teachings of Monogioudis since Kiran provides a technique for superposition involving an 1xEV-DO pilot, which can be introduced into the system of Monogioudis to permit efficient utilization of wireless resources by base stations.
Claims 29 and 38 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Monogioudis in view of Balachandran et al. (Pub. No.: US 20080318613 A1), hereafter referred to as Balachandran.
In regard to Claim 29, as presented in the rejection of Claim 21, Monogioudis teaches the communications network.
Monogioudis fails to teach the communications network is a long term evolution network.
Balachandran teaches the communications network is a long term evolution network (In FIG. 2, plural base stations 210-1, 210-2 and 210-3 communicate with a terminal 240 in which the communication links between the plural base stations 210-1, 210-2 and 210-3 and the terminal 240. The anchor base station 210-1 may be a Node B element in an LTE network, Para. 29, FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Balachandran with the teachings of Monogioudis since Balachandran provides a technique for utilizing LTE in a network of base station using macrodiversity, which can be introduced into the system of Monogioudis to permit cooperating base stations to benefit from the utilization of LTE for wireless communications.
In regard to Claim 38, as presented in the rejection of Claim 30, Monogioudis teaches the communications system.
Monogioudis fails to teach the communications system is a long term evolution network.
Balachandran teaches the communications system is a long term evolution network (In FIG. 2, plural base stations 210-1, 210-2 and 210-3 communicate with a terminal 240 in which the communication links between the plural base stations 210-1, 210-2 and 210-3 and the terminal 240. The anchor base station 210-1 may be a Node B element in an LTE network, Para. 29, FIG. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to combine the teachings of Balachandran with the teachings of Monogioudis since Balachandran provides a technique for utilizing LTE in a network of base station using macrodiversity, which can be introduced into the system of Monogioudis to permit cooperating base stations to benefit from the utilization of LTE for wireless communications.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA Y SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:30am-7pm 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, CHIRAG G SHAH can be reached at (571)272-3144. 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.
Joshua Smith
/J.S./
1-22-2026
/CHIRAG G SHAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2477