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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on September 24, 2025 has been entered.
Possible Status as Continuation-in-Part
This application repeats a substantial portion of prior Application No. 17/739,672, filed May 09, 2022, and adds disclosure not presented in the prior application. Because this application names the inventor or at least one joint inventor named in the prior application, it may constitute a continuation-in-part of the prior application. Should applicant desire to claim the benefit of the filing date of the prior application, attention is directed to 35 U.S.C. 120, 37 CFR 1.78, and MPEP § 211 et seq. The presentation of a benefit claim may result in an additional fee under 37 CFR 1.17(w)(1) or (2) being required, if the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, 365(c), or 386(c) and 1.78(d) in the application is more than six years before the actual filing date of the application.
The added new disclosure not presented in the prior application is the amended portion of claims 2, 17 and 22 (receiving a sounding signal from a beamformer on a particular set of tones;).
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 in response to receiving a second sounding signal from the beamformer updating the beamforming feedback matrix for feedback to the beamformer. Lee does not specifically teach of the sounding signal received from a beamformer is on a particular set of tones.
Su teaches of receiving a sounding signal from a beamformer (NDP1, Fig.10); 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), 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.
Conclusion
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