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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendment, filed April 21, 2026, with respect to the rejections of claims have been fully considered. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new grounds of rejection presented below by introducing the new references of Murakami et al (US 2009/0046008) and Lin et al (US 2006/0234645).
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.
Claims 2 – 6, 11, 13 – 14 and 17 – 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2020/0091970) in view of Su et al (US 2018/0351620) and further in view of Cariou et al (US 2020/0015041).
Re claims 2 and 22, Lee teaches of one or more non-transitory computer readable media storing instructions which, when executed by one or more processors (Paragraph 0090), causes a system to perform operations, the operations comprising: receiving a sounding signal from a beamformer (#102, Fig.3); in response to receiving the sounding signal from the beamformer, computing a beamforming feedback matrix for feedback to the beamformer (#108, Fig.3 and Paragraphs 0044 – 0048, beamforming feedback matrix, Paragraphs 0022 and 0043 – 0058); sending the beamforming feedback matrix to the beamformer (#112, Fig.3, Paragraph 0045). However, Lee does not specifically teach of receiving the sounding signal from the beamformer on a particular set of tones using a first subset of antennas of the beamformer; in response to receiving a second sounding signal from the beamformer using a second subset of antennas of the beamformer that is different from the first subset of antennas, updating the beamforming feedback matrix for feedback to the beamformer.
Su teaches of receiving a sounding signal from a beamformer (NDP1, Fig.10) using a first subset of antennas of the beamformer (first subset of transmit antennas, #802, Fig.8); in response to receiving the sounding signal from the beamformer, computing a beamforming feedback frame for feedback to the beamformer (CBF1, Fig.10 and Paragraphs 0075 – 0078); sending the beamforming feedback frame to the beamformer (sending CBF1, Fig.10 and Paragraph 0078), and in response to receiving a second sounding signal from the beamformer (NDP2, Fig.10, Paragraph 0081) using a second subset of antennas of the beamformer (second subset of transmit antennas, #806, Fig.8) that is different from the first subset of antennas (a second subset of the antennas that partially overlaps with the first subset, Abstract), updating the beamforming feedback frame for feedback to the beamformer (CBF2, Fig.10 and Paragraph 0081).
Cariou teaches of receiving a sounding signal from a beamformer (Paragraph 0034) on a particular set of tones (pilot tones, Paragraph 0056).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have updated the beamforming feedback matrix for feedback or computed a second beamforming feedback matrix for feedback to the beamformer to effectively perform beamforming by utilizing all of the transmit antennas. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the sounding signal received from a beamformer on a particular set of pilot tones so as to accurate perform channel estimation.
Re claims 3 and 23, Lee teaches of wherein the sounding signal includes a null data packet (NDP) (#102, Fig.3).
Re claim 4, Lee teaches of wherein the dimensions of the feedback matrix are limited by a number of space-time streams (Nss, Paragraphs 0054 – 0055).
Re claim 5, Lee teaches of wherein a number of rows in the feedback matrix is the same number of rows as the number of spatial streams of the sounding signal (the beamforming matrix V has Nss columns or Nss vectors, Paragraph 0054).
Re claims 6 and 21, Lee teaches of wherein a steering matrix is determined based on the feedback matrix (The access point, as the beamformer, receives the compressed beamforming matrix and reconstructs the beamforming matrix so as to perform beamforming or beam steering, Paragraph 0043).
Re claim 11, Lee teaches of wherein the steering matrix is generated based on feedback signals related to two or more antennas (Nrx, Paragraphs 0054 – 0055).
Re claim 13, Lee teaches of wherein at least one of the two or more antennas are associated with a second beamformee (Nrx, Paragraphs 0054 – 0055).
Re claim 14, Lee teaches of wherein sending the beamforming feedback matrix to the beamformer including sending channel state information of the beamformee to the beamformer (channel state information, Paragraphs 0022 and 0043).
Re claim 17, Lee, Su and Cariou teach of a system (Fig. 2 of Lee), comprising: a memory (#62, Fig. 2 of Lee); and one or more processors coupled to the memory (#60, Fig. 2 of Lee), the memory storing instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the system to perform operations comprising: receive a sounding signal from a beamformer on a particular set of tones; in response to receiving the sounding signal from the beamformer, compute a beamforming feedback matrix for feedback to the beamformer; cause the beamforming feedback matrix to be sent to the beamformer and in response to receiving a second sounding signal from the beamformer, update the beamforming feedback matrix for feedback to the beamformer (see claim 1).
Re claim 18, Lee teaches of wherein the sounding signal includes a null data packet (NDP) (#102, Fig.3).
Re claim 19, Lee teaches of wherein the dimensions of the feedback matrix are limited by a number of space-time streams (Nss, Paragraphs 0054 – 0055).
Re claim 20, Lee teaches of wherein a number of rows in the feedback matrix is the same number of rows as the number of spatial streams of the sounding signal (the beamforming matrix V has Nss columns or Nss vectors, Paragraph 0054).
Claims 7 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Su and Cariou in view of Lui et al (US 2020/0112353).
Re claim 7, Lee, Su and Cariou teach all the limitations of claim 6 except of wherein the steering matrix is configured to reduce interference between the beamformee at least one other beamformee.
Wu teaches of a steering matrix configured to reduce interference between the beamformee at least one other beamformee (Paragraph 0003).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the steering matrix configured to reduce interference between the beamformee at least one other beamformee for improved communication performance.
Re claim 8, Lee, Su and Cariou teach all the limitations of claim 6 except of wherein the steering matrix is configured to at least partially address signal degradation.
Wu teaches of a steering matrix is configured to at least partially address signal degradation (Paragraph 0003).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the steering matrix configured to at least partially address signal degradation for improved communication performance.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Su and Cariou in view of Raghavan et al (US 2016/0198474).
Re claim 9, Lee, Su and Cariou teach all the limitations of claim 6 as well as Lee teaches of maintaining a performance at or above a threshold performance (#214, Fig. 5). However, Lee, Su and Cariou do not specifically teach of wherein the steering matrix is configured to enable broadcasting at a reduced radiated power.
Raghavan teaches of wherein the steering matrix is configured to enable broadcasting (Paragraphs 0005 and 0070) at a reduced radiated power while maintaining a performance at or above a threshold performance (Paragraph 0087).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have enabled broadcasting at a reduced radiated power while maintaining a performance at or above a threshold performance for optimizing communication performance.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Su and Cariou in view of Zhang et al (US 2012/0087382).
Re claim 10, Lee, Su and Cariou teach all the limitations of claim 6 except of wherein the steering matrix is configured to decrease at least one of clutter or excessive signals in a wireless space.
Zhang teaches of a steering matrix configured to decrease at least one of clutter or excessive signals in a wireless space (multipath propagation is reduced, Abstract).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the steering matrix configured to decrease at least one of clutter or excessive signals in a wireless space to improve communication performance.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Su and Cariou in view of Ahn et al (US 2018/0034606).
Re claim 12, Lee, Su and Cariou teach all the limitations of claim 11 except of wherein the steering matrix is configured to reduce interference between the two or more antennas.
Ahn teaches of performing beamforming to reduce interference between the two or more antennas (Paragraph 0070).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the steering matrix configured to reduce interference between the two or more antennas for efficient data transmission.
Claims 24 – 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Su and Cariou in view of Murakami et al (US 2009/0046008).
Re claim 24, Lee, Su and Cariou teach all the limitations of claim 6, as well as Su teaches of further comprising determining, at the beamformee, a combined beamforming matrix (Hcomb, Paragraphs 0083 – 0084) being determined based on the beamforming feedback matrix and one or more additional beamforming feedback matrices computed in response to further sounding signals from the beamformer (CBF1, CBF2, Fig.10). However, Lee, Su and Cariou do not specifically teach of determining, at the beamformer, a correlational matrix that represents correlational relationships between respective antennas of the beamformer, the correlational matrix being determined based on the beamforming feedback matrix and one or more additional beamforming feedback matrices computed in response to further sounding signals from the beamformer.
Murakami teaches of determining, at the beamformer, a correlational matrix that represents correlational relationships between respective antennas of the beamformer, the correlational matrix being determined based on the beamforming feedback matrix (Channel analyzing section 107 obtains a channel matrix (space correlation matrix) between a plurality of transmit and receive antennas based on channel state information, Paragraph 0043, Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined a correlational matrix being determined based on the beamforming feedback matrices for optimizing signal strength, coverage, and spatial accuracy.
Re claim 25, Lee, Su, Cariou and Murakami teach all the limitations of claim 24, as well as Su teaches of wherein determining the combined beamforming matrix comprises, for each of a plurality of sounding signals transmitted using different subsets of antennas of the beamformer (Hcomb, Paragraphs 0083 – 0084), forming a sparse beamforming sub-matrix corresponding to the antennas that transmitted the sounding signal (equation 4), and combining the sparse beamforming sub-matrices (equation 4, equation 6) into the combined beamforming matrix (Hcomb, Paragraphs 0083 – 0084). Murakami teaches of determining, at the beamformer, a correlational matrix that represents correlational relationships between respective antennas of the beamformer, the correlational matrix being determined based on the beamforming feedback matrix (Channel analyzing section 107 obtains a channel matrix (space correlation matrix) between a plurality of transmit and receive antennas based on channel state information, Paragraph 0043, Fig.2).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined beamforming feedback information to effectively perform beamforming by utilizing all of the transmit antennas. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have performed the combination at the beamformer by combining sparse correlational sub-matrices into the correlational matrix to ease UE complexity.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee, Su, Cariou and Murakami in view of Lin et al (US 2006/0234645).
Re claim 27, Lee, Su, Cariou and Murakami teach all the limitations of claim 24 except of wherein determining the steering matrix comprises deriving eigenvectors of the correlational matrix and forming the steering matrix from a subset of the eigenvectors corresponding to respective largest eigenvalues.
Lin teaches of determining the steering matrix comprises deriving eigenvectors of the correlational matrix and forming the steering matrix from a subset of the eigenvectors corresponding to respective largest eigenvalues (Paragraph 0014).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined the steering matrix comprises deriving eigenvectors of the correlational matrix and forming the steering matrix from a subset of the eigenvectors corresponding to respective largest eigenvalues for a more effective MIMO transmission.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 26 and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
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 ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS whose telephone number is (571)270-1206. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30am-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, Sam K Ahn can be reached on (571) 272-3044. 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.
/ARISTOCRATIS FOTAKIS/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633
Prosecution Insights