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 .
This office action is in response to remarks filed on 12/19/2025.
Claims 1-30 are pending and presented for examination. Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, and 25 are amended.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/31/2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Amendments
Claims 1, 2, 7, 8, 10, 15, 16, and 25 have been considered based on amendments.
Applicant's request to list the prior art made of record and not relied upon on Form PTO-892 has been acknowledged.
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 non-obviousness.
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, 10, 16, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkarakaran et al (US20210385678A1) (hereinafter "Akkarakaran") in view of Raghavan et al (US20230088577A1) (hereinafter "Raghavan '577") and Raghavan et al (US20200195320A1) (hereinafter "Raghavan '320").
Regarding claim 1, Akkarakaran discloses an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
a memory comprising instructions; and ([0106] one or more procedures described with respect to the method(s) discussed above may be implemented as code and/or instructions in memory 760 that are executable by the UE 105 (and/or processing unit(s) 710 or DSP 720 within UE 105).)
one or more processors configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to ([0106] one or more procedures described with respect to the method(s) discussed above may be implemented as code and/or instructions in memory 760 that are executable by the UE 105 (and/or processing unit(s) 710 or DSP 720 within UE 105).):
transmit signaling indicating antenna module capability information ([0093] the functionality comprises receiving, from the transmitting device, information indicative of a shape of a beam used by the transmitting device to transmit the RF reference signal) comprising geometric shape information corresponding to one or more antenna modules of the UE ([0093] According to some embodiments the information indicative of the shape of the beam further comprises a boresight, beamforming gain, and width of one or more sidelobes of the beam. … According to some embodiments, the information indicative of the shape of the beam comprises the information indicative of the radiation pattern of the antenna elements of the antenna panel used to transmit the beam, and wherein the information indicative of the shape of the beam further comprises information indicative of a geometry and layout of the antenna elements of the antenna panel.).
Akkarakaran fails to disclose an apparatus, comprising: receive an indication of a number of reference signals (RSs).
However, Raghavan '577 discloses an apparatus, comprising: receive an indication of a number of reference signals (RSs) ([0103] the indication of the selected beamforming configuration to use for the one or more communications comprises an indication of a number of reference signals for the UE to receive, an indication of one or more types of reference signals for the UE to receive, a beam search scheme for the UE to use, or a beam refinement scheme for the UE to use.).
Akkarakaran and Raghavan '577 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of providing a capability indication from one network entity to another network entity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran and Raghavan '577 to create an apparatus, comprising: receive an indication of a number of reference signals (RSs).
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to limit the number of RS to the maximum capability of the antenna module of the UE.
Akkarakaran fails to disclose an apparatus, comprising: wherein the geometric shape information indicates multiple boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules; and
wherein the number of RSs is based on the antenna module capability information.
However, Raghavan '320 discloses an apparatus, comprising: wherein the geometric shape information indicates multiple boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules; and ([0106] When transmitting channel information request 220, UE 115-a may also provide configuration information to base station 105-a about its foldable state 205 and the lack of an analog beamforming codebook for foldable state 205. [0107] This configuration information may include a description of foldable state 205 relative to past folding states (e.g., an implicit description relative to the past states) or may include an explicit or more active description of foldable state 205 (e.g., an indication of the specific antenna array shape and size for foldable state 205, as well as the directions over which the antenna array can be used). Accordingly, foldable state 205 may be translated into antenna information that base station 105-a can use for processing, where the antenna information may indicate the antenna shape (e.g., linear, planar, circular, collocated, distributed, etc.) and the antenna dimensions of antenna array 210.)
wherein the number of RSs is based on the antenna module capability information ([0053] For example, if the flexible UE determines that a current or upcoming foldable state does not correspond to a codebook that has been determined prior to the foldable state and is not stored in the local memory (e.g., pre-loaded), the flexible UE may provide information about the folding state to a base station and an indication that a codebook is currently undetermined or unavailable for the foldable state. Additionally, when providing this information to the base station, the flexible UE may also request that the base station provide channel information to assist with the codebook determination. In some cases, this request may indicate to the base station to allocate a specific number of contiguous CSI-RS symbols that the UE can use for the codebook determination.)
Akkarakaran and Raghavan '320 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of techniques for beamforming codebook adaptation for flexible wireless devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran and Raghavan '320 to create an apparatus, comprising: wherein the geometric shape information indicates multiple boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules; and wherein the number of RSs is based on the antenna module capability information.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve beamforming communications between the UE and other wireless devices (e.g., a base station).
Regarding claim 10, Akkarakaran discloses an apparatus for wireless communications at a network entity, comprising:
a memory comprising instructions; and ([0106] one or more procedures described with respect to the method(s) discussed above may be implemented as code and/or instructions in memory 760 that are executable by the UE 105 (and/or processing unit(s) 710 or DSP 720 within UE 105)
one or more processors configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to: ([0106] one or more procedures described with respect to the method(s) discussed above may be implemented as code and/or instructions in memory 760 that are executable by the UE 105 (and/or processing unit(s) 710 or DSP 720 within UE 105)
receive signaling indicating antenna module capability information ([0093] the functionality comprises receiving, from the transmitting device, information indicative of a shape of a beam used by the transmitting device to transmit the RF reference signal) comprising geometric shape information corresponding to one or more antenna modules of a user equipment (UE) ([0093] wherein the information indicative of the shape of the beam further comprises information indicative of a geometry and layout of the antenna elements of the antenna panel).
Akkarakaran fails to disclose an apparatus, comprising: transmit an indication of a number of reference signals (RSs).
However, Raghavan '577 discloses an apparatus, comprising: transmit an indication of a number of reference signals (RSs) ([0103] the indication of the selected beamforming configuration to use for the one or more communications comprises an indication of a number of reference signals for the UE to receive, an indication of one or more types of reference signals for the UE to receive, a beam search scheme for the UE to use, or a beam refinement scheme for the UE to use.).
Akkarakaran and Raghavan '577 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of providing a capability indication from one network entity to another network entity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran and Raghavan '577 to create an apparatus, comprising: transmit an indication of a number of reference signals (RSs).
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to limit the number of RS to the maximum capability of the antenna module of the UE.
Akkarakaran fails to disclose an apparatus, comprising: wherein the geometric shape information indicates multiple boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules; and wherein the number of RSs is based on the antenna module capability information.
However, Raghavan '320 discloses an apparatus, comprising: wherein the geometric shape information indicates multiple boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules; and ([0106] When transmitting channel information request 220, UE 115-a may also provide configuration information to base station 105-a about its foldable state 205 and the lack of an analog beamforming codebook for foldable state 205. [0107] This configuration information may include a description of foldable state 205 relative to past folding states (e.g., an implicit description relative to the past states) or may include an explicit or more active description of foldable state 205 (e.g., an indication of the specific antenna array shape and size for foldable state 205, as well as the directions over which the antenna array can be used). Accordingly, foldable state 205 may be translated into antenna information that base station 105-a can use for processing, where the antenna information may indicate the antenna shape (e.g., linear, planar, circular, collocated, distributed, etc.) and the antenna dimensions of antenna array 210.)
wherein the number of RSs is based on the antenna module capability information ([0053] For example, if the flexible UE determines that a current or upcoming foldable state does not correspond to a codebook that has been determined prior to the foldable state and is not stored in the local memory (e.g., pre-loaded), the flexible UE may provide information about the folding state to a base station and an indication that a codebook is currently undetermined or unavailable for the foldable state. Additionally, when providing this information to the base station, the flexible UE may also request that the base station provide channel information to assist with the codebook determination. In some cases, this request may indicate to the base station to allocate a specific number of contiguous CSI-RS symbols that the UE can use for the codebook determination.)
Akkarakaran and Raghavan '320 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of techniques for beamforming codebook adaptation for flexible wireless devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran and Raghavan '320 to create an apparatus, comprising: wherein the geometric shape information indicates multiple boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules; and wherein the number of RSs is based on the antenna module capability information.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve beamforming communications between the UE and other wireless devices (e.g., a base station).
Regarding claim 16, Akkarakaran discloses a method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE), comprising:
transmitting signaling indicating antenna module capability information ([0093] the functionality comprises receiving, from the transmitting device, information indicative of a shape of a beam used by the transmitting device to transmit the RF reference signal) comprising geometric shape information corresponding to one or more antenna modules of the UE ([0093] wherein the information indicative of the shape of the beam further comprises information indicative of a geometry and layout of the antenna elements of the antenna panel).
Akkarakaran fails to disclose a method, comprising: receiving an indication of a number of reference signals (RSs).
However, Raghavan '577 discloses a method, comprising: receiving an indication of a number of reference signals (RSs) ([0103] the indication of the selected beamforming configuration to use for the one or more communications comprises an indication of a number of reference signals for the UE to receive, an indication of one or more types of reference signals for the UE to receive, a beam search scheme for the UE to use, or a beam refinement scheme for the UE to use.).
Akkarakaran and Raghavan '577 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of providing a capability indication from one network entity to another network entity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran and Raghavan '577 to create a method, comprising: receiving an indication of a number of reference signals (RSs).
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to limit the number of RS to the maximum capability of the antenna module of the UE.
Akkarakaran fails to disclose a method, comprising: wherein the geometric shape information indicates multiple boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules; and wherein the number of RSs is based on the antenna module capability information.
However, Raghavan '320 discloses a method, comprising: wherein the geometric shape information indicates multiple boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules; and ([0106] When transmitting channel information request 220, UE 115-a may also provide configuration information to base station 105-a about its foldable state 205 and the lack of an analog beamforming codebook for foldable state 205. [0107] This configuration information may include a description of foldable state 205 relative to past folding states (e.g., an implicit description relative to the past states) or may include an explicit or more active description of foldable state 205 (e.g., an indication of the specific antenna array shape and size for foldable state 205, as well as the directions over which the antenna array can be used). Accordingly, foldable state 205 may be translated into antenna information that base station 105-a can use for processing, where the antenna information may indicate the antenna shape (e.g., linear, planar, circular, collocated, distributed, etc.) and the antenna dimensions of antenna array 210.)
wherein the number of RSs is based on the antenna module capability information ([0053] For example, if the flexible UE determines that a current or upcoming foldable state does not correspond to a codebook that has been determined prior to the foldable state and is not stored in the local memory (e.g., pre-loaded), the flexible UE may provide information about the folding state to a base station and an indication that a codebook is currently undetermined or unavailable for the foldable state. Additionally, when providing this information to the base station, the flexible UE may also request that the base station provide channel information to assist with the codebook determination. In some cases, this request may indicate to the base station to allocate a specific number of contiguous CSI-RS symbols that the UE can use for the codebook determination.)
Akkarakaran and Raghavan '320 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of techniques for beamforming codebook adaptation for flexible wireless devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran and Raghavan '320 to create a method, comprising: wherein the geometric shape information indicates multiple boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules; and wherein the number of RSs is based on the antenna module capability information.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve beamforming communications between the UE and other wireless devices (e.g., a base station).
Regarding claim 25, Akkarakaran discloses a method for wireless communications at a network entity, comprising:
receiving signaling indicating antenna module capability information ([0093] the functionality comprises receiving, from the transmitting device, information indicative of a shape of a beam used by the transmitting device to transmit the RF reference signal) comprising geometric shape information corresponding to one or more antenna modules of a user equipment (UE) ([0093] wherein the information indicative of the shape of the beam further comprises information indicative of a geometry and layout of the antenna elements of the antenna panel).
Akkarakaran fails to disclose a method, comprising: transmitting an indication of a number of reference signals (RSs).
However, Raghavan '577 discloses a method, comprising: transmitting an indication of a number of reference signals (RSs) ([0103] the indication of the selected beamforming configuration to use for the one or more communications comprises an indication of a number of reference signals for the UE to receive, an indication of one or more types of reference signals for the UE to receive, a beam search scheme for the UE to use, or a beam refinement scheme for the UE to use.).
Akkarakaran and Raghavan '577 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of providing a capability indication from one network entity to another network entity.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran and Raghavan '577 to create a method, comprising: transmitting an indication of a number of reference signals (RSs).
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to limit the number of RS to the maximum capability of the antenna module of the UE.
Akkarakaran fails to disclose a method, comprising: wherein the geometric shape information indicates multiple boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules; and wherein the number of RSs is based on the antenna module capability information.
However, Raghavan '320 discloses a method, comprising: wherein the geometric shape information indicates multiple boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules; and ([0106] When transmitting channel information request 220, UE 115-a may also provide configuration information to base station 105-a about its foldable state 205 and the lack of an analog beamforming codebook for foldable state 205. [0107] This configuration information may include a description of foldable state 205 relative to past folding states (e.g., an implicit description relative to the past states) or may include an explicit or more active description of foldable state 205 (e.g., an indication of the specific antenna array shape and size for foldable state 205, as well as the directions over which the antenna array can be used). Accordingly, foldable state 205 may be translated into antenna information that base station 105-a can use for processing, where the antenna information may indicate the antenna shape (e.g., linear, planar, circular, collocated, distributed, etc.) and the antenna dimensions of antenna array 210.)
wherein the number of RSs is based on the antenna module capability information ([0053] For example, if the flexible UE determines that a current or upcoming foldable state does not correspond to a codebook that has been determined prior to the foldable state and is not stored in the local memory (e.g., pre-loaded), the flexible UE may provide information about the folding state to a base station and an indication that a codebook is currently undetermined or unavailable for the foldable state. Additionally, when providing this information to the base station, the flexible UE may also request that the base station provide channel information to assist with the codebook determination. In some cases, this request may indicate to the base station to allocate a specific number of contiguous CSI-RS symbols that the UE can use for the codebook determination.)
Akkarakaran and Raghavan '320 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of techniques for beamforming codebook adaptation for flexible wireless devices.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran and Raghavan '320 to create a method, comprising: wherein the geometric shape information indicates multiple boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules; and wherein the number of RSs is based on the antenna module capability information.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to improve beamforming communications between the UE and other wireless devices (e.g., a base station).
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkarakaran in view of Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and in further view of Raghavan et al (US20210167834A1) (hereinafter "Raghavan '834").
Regarding claim 2, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to perform beamforming, with beam weights estimated from the indicated RSs.
However, Raghavan '834 discloses the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to perform beamforming, with beam weights estimated from the indicated RSs ([0048] the capability information can include one or more parameters related to multi-directional beam communications, such as a number of antenna elements in an active antenna array (or subarray), a request for a number of reference signals (RSs) from which to derive beam weights, etc.).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Raghavan '834 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of communicating using multiple beams.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Raghavan '834 to create the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to perform beamforming, with beam weights estimated from the indicated RSs.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to determine the priority of the beams given an initial signal.
Regarding claim 17, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the method, further comprising performing beamforming, with beam weights estimated from the indicated RSs
However, Raghavan '834 discloses the method, further comprising performing beamforming, with beam weights estimated from the indicated RSs ([0048] the capability information can include one or more parameters related to multi-directional beam communications, such as a number of antenna elements in an active antenna array (or subarray), a request for a number of reference signals (RSs) from which to derive beam weights, etc.).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Raghavan '834 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of communicating using multiple beams.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Raghavan '834 to create the method, further comprising performing beamforming, with beam weights estimated from the indicated RSs.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to determine the priority of the beams given an initial signal.
Claims 3, 11, 18, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkarakaran in view of Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and in further view of Sony et al (IDP202207513A) (hereinafter "Sony").
Regarding claim 3, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the antenna module capability information indicates a number of boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules and relative orientations of the number of boresight directions.
However, Sony discloses the apparatus, wherein the antenna module capability information indicates a number of boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules and relative orientations of the number of boresight directions (Pg. 18, [0002] the information indication of the beam shape comprises information indicating the beam gain in a number of azimuth and elevation directions, the boresight and width of the main lobe of the beam, the radiation pattern of the antenna elements on the antenna panel used to transmit the beam, the beam shape for the reference frequency or bandwidth).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Sony are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of providing an indication of a device capabilities to another device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Sony to create the apparatus, wherein the antenna module capability information indicates a number of boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules and relative orientations of the number of boresight directions.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to identify the relative positions of the antenna elements.
Regarding claim 11, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the antenna module capability information indicates a number of boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules and relative orientations of the number of boresight directions.
However, Sony discloses the apparatus, wherein the antenna module capability information indicates a number of boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules and relative orientations of the number of boresight directions (Pg. 18, [0002] the information indication of the beam shape comprises information indicating the beam gain in a number of azimuth and elevation directions, the boresight and width of the main lobe of the beam, the radiation pattern of the antenna elements on the antenna panel used to transmit the beam, the beam shape for the reference frequency or bandwidth).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Sony are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of providing an indication of a device capabilities to another device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Sony to create the apparatus, wherein the antenna module capability information indicates a number of boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules and relative orientations of the number of boresight directions.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to identify the relative positions of the antenna elements.
Regarding claim 18, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the method, wherein the antenna module capability information indicates a number of boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules and relative orientations of the number of boresight directions.
However, Sony discloses the method, wherein the antenna module capability information indicates a number of boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules and relative orientations of the number of boresight directions (Pg. 18, [0002] the information indication of the beam shape comprises information indicating the beam gain in a number of azimuth and elevation directions, the boresight and width of the main lobe of the beam, the radiation pattern of the antenna elements on the antenna panel used to transmit the beam, the beam shape for the reference frequency or bandwidth).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Sony are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of providing an indication of a device capabilities to another device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Sony to create the method, wherein the antenna module capability information indicates a number of boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules and relative orientations of the number of boresight directions.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to identify the relative positions of the antenna elements.
Regarding claim 26, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the method, wherein the antenna module capability information indicates a number of boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules and relative orientations of the number of boresight directions.
However, Sony discloses the method, wherein the antenna module capability information indicates a number of boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules and relative orientations of the number of boresight directions (Pg. 18, [0002] the information indication of the beam shape comprises information indicating the beam gain in a number of azimuth and elevation directions, the boresight and width of the main lobe of the beam, the radiation pattern of the antenna elements on the antenna panel used to transmit the beam, the beam shape for the reference frequency or bandwidth).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Sony are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of providing an indication of a device capabilities to another device.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Sony to create the method, wherein the antenna module capability information indicates a number of boresight directions of the one or more antenna modules and relative orientations of the number of boresight directions.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to identify the relative positions of the antenna elements.
Claims 4-5, 12-13, 19-20, and 27-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkarakaran in view of Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and in further view of Puente Baliarda et al (US20050259009A1) (hereinafter "Puente Baliarda").
Regarding claim 4, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
However, Puente Baliarda discloses the apparatus, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules (Pg. 6, Col. 1, 53: A multi-band antenna including at least one multilevel structure wherein the multilevel structure includes at least one antenna region comprising a set of polygonal or polyhedral elements having a generally identifiable geometrical shape and having the same number of sides or faces, wherein each of said elements in said antenna region is electromagnetically coupled to at least one other of said elements in said antenna region either directly through at least one point of contact or through a small separation providing said coupling).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Puente Baliarda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of antennas formed by sets of similar geometrical elements that are electromagnetically coupled and grouped.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Puente Baliarda to create the apparatus, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to distinguish the basic elements that comprise the overall antenna structure.
Regarding claim 5, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
However, Puente Baliarda discloses the apparatus, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules (Pg. 6, Col. 1, 53: A multi-band antenna including at least one multilevel structure wherein the multilevel structure includes at least one antenna region comprising a set of polygonal or polyhedral elements having a generally identifiable geometrical shape and having the same number of sides or faces, wherein each of said elements in said antenna region is electromagnetically coupled to at least one other of said elements in said antenna region either directly through at least one point of contact or through a small separation providing said coupling).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Puente Baliarda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of antennas formed by sets of similar geometrical elements that are electromagnetically coupled and grouped.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Puente Baliarda to create the apparatus, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to distinguish the basic elements that comprise the overall antenna structure.
Regarding claim 12, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
However, Puente Baliarda discloses the apparatus, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules (Pg. 6, Col. 1, 53: A multi-band antenna including at least one multilevel structure wherein the multilevel structure includes at least one antenna region comprising a set of polygonal or polyhedral elements having a generally identifiable geometrical shape and having the same number of sides or faces, wherein each of said elements in said antenna region is electromagnetically coupled to at least one other of said elements in said antenna region either directly through at least one point of contact or through a small separation providing said coupling).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Puente Baliarda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of antennas formed by sets of similar geometrical elements that are electromagnetically coupled and grouped.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Puente Baliarda to create the apparatus, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to distinguish the basic elements that comprise the overall antenna structure.
Regarding claim 13, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
However, Puente Baliarda discloses the apparatus, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules (Pg. 6, Col. 1, 53: A multi-band antenna including at least one multilevel structure wherein the multilevel structure includes at least one antenna region comprising a set of polygonal or polyhedral elements having a generally identifiable geometrical shape and having the same number of sides or faces, wherein each of said elements in said antenna region is electromagnetically coupled to at least one other of said elements in said antenna region either directly through at least one point of contact or through a small separation providing said coupling).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Puente Baliarda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of antennas formed by sets of similar geometrical elements that are electromagnetically coupled and grouped.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Puente Baliarda to create the apparatus, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to distinguish the basic elements that comprise the overall antenna structure.
Regarding claim 19, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the method, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
However, Puente Baliarda discloses the method, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules (Pg. 6, Col. 1, 53: A multi-band antenna including at least one multilevel structure wherein the multilevel structure includes at least one antenna region comprising a set of polygonal or polyhedral elements having a generally identifiable geometrical shape and having the same number of sides or faces, wherein each of said elements in said antenna region is electromagnetically coupled to at least one other of said elements in said antenna region either directly through at least one point of contact or through a small separation providing said coupling).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Puente Baliarda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of antennas formed by sets of similar geometrical elements that are electromagnetically coupled and grouped.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Puente Baliarda to create the method, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to distinguish the basic elements that comprise the overall antenna structure.
Regarding claim 20, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the method, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
However, Puente Baliarda discloses the method, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules (Pg. 6, Col. 1, 53: A multi-band antenna including at least one multilevel structure wherein the multilevel structure includes at least one antenna region comprising a set of polygonal or polyhedral elements having a generally identifiable geometrical shape and having the same number of sides or faces, wherein each of said elements in said antenna region is electromagnetically coupled to at least one other of said elements in said antenna region either directly through at least one point of contact or through a small separation providing said coupling).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Puente Baliarda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of antennas formed by sets of similar geometrical elements that are electromagnetically coupled and grouped.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Puente Baliarda to create the method, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to distinguish the basic elements that comprise the overall antenna structure.
Regarding claim 27, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the method, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
However, Puente Baliarda discloses the method, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules (Pg. 6, Col. 1, 53: A multi-band antenna including at least one multilevel structure wherein the multilevel structure includes at least one antenna region comprising a set of polygonal or polyhedral elements having a generally identifiable geometrical shape and having the same number of sides or faces, wherein each of said elements in said antenna region is electromagnetically coupled to at least one other of said elements in said antenna region either directly through at least one point of contact or through a small separation providing said coupling).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Puente Baliarda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of antennas formed by sets of similar geometrical elements that are electromagnetically coupled and grouped.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Puente Baliarda to create the method, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to distinguish the basic elements that comprise the overall antenna structure.
Regarding claim 28, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the method, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
However, Puente Baliarda discloses the method, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules (Pg. 6, Col. 1, 53: A multi-band antenna including at least one multilevel structure wherein the multilevel structure includes at least one antenna region comprising a set of polygonal or polyhedral elements having a generally identifiable geometrical shape and having the same number of sides or faces, wherein each of said elements in said antenna region is electromagnetically coupled to at least one other of said elements in said antenna region either directly through at least one point of contact or through a small separation providing said coupling).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Puente Baliarda are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of antennas formed by sets of similar geometrical elements that are electromagnetically coupled and grouped.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Puente Baliarda to create the method, wherein the geometric shape information associated with the one or more antenna modules indicates a number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to distinguish the basic elements that comprise the overall antenna structure.
Claims 6, 14, 21, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkarakaran in view of Raghavan '577, Raghavan '320 and Puente Baliarda, as applied to claims 1, 10, 16, or 25 above, and in further view of Seol et al (US20140187168A1) (hereinafter "Seol").
Regarding claim 6, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320 and Puente Baliarda, fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the number of RSs is based on the number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
However, Seol discloses the apparatus, wherein the number of RSs is based on the number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules ([0085] the controller transmits the reference signal via the downlink to the MS. As many reference signals as the number of antenna elements included in the subarray of the MS can be transmitted.).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320 and Puente Baliarda, and Seol are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of beamforming and beam selection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320 and Puente Baliarda, with Seol to create the apparatus, wherein the number of RSs is based on the number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to associate the antenna elements with a particular directionality based on the reference signals.
Regarding claim 14, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320 and Puente Baliarda, fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the number of RSs is based on the number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
However, Seol discloses the apparatus, wherein the number of RSs is based on the number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules ([0085] the controller transmits the reference signal via the downlink to the MS. As many reference signals as the number of antenna elements included in the subarray of the MS can be transmitted.).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320 and Puente Baliarda, and Seol are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of beamforming and beam selection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320 and Puente Baliarda, with Seol to create the apparatus, wherein the number of RSs is based on the number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to associate the antenna elements with a particular directionality based on the reference signals.
Regarding claim 21, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320 and Puente Baliarda, fails to disclose the method, wherein the number of RSs is based on the number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
However, Seol discloses the method, wherein the number of RSs is based on the number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules ([0085] the controller transmits the reference signal via the downlink to the MS. As many reference signals as the number of antenna elements included in the subarray of the MS can be transmitted.).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320 and Puente Baliarda, and Seol are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of beamforming and beam selection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320 and Puente Baliarda, with Seol to create the method, wherein the number of RSs is based on the number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to associate the antenna elements with a particular directionality based on the reference signals.
Regarding claim 29, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320 and Puente Baliarda, fails to disclose the method, wherein the number of RSs is based on the number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
However, Seol discloses the method, wherein the number of RSs is based on the number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules ([0085] the controller transmits the reference signal via the downlink to the MS. As many reference signals as the number of antenna elements included in the subarray of the MS can be transmitted.).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320 and Puente Baliarda, and Seol are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of beamforming and beam selection.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320 and Puente Baliarda, with Seol to create the method, wherein the number of RSs is based on the number of antenna elements on each side of the number of sides of each of the one or more antenna modules.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to associate the antenna elements with a particular directionality based on the reference signals.
Claims 7-8, 15, 22-23, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkarakaran in view of Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and in further view of Raghavan et al (US20210351830A1) (hereinafter "Raghavan '830").
Regarding claim 7, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to receive a configuration indicating a grant of RSs for use with a subset of antenna elements across one or more antenna modules.
However, Raghavan '830 discloses the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to receive a configuration indicating a grant of RSs for use with a subset of antenna elements across one or more antenna modules ([0088] Based on transmitting message 370 to network entity 350, UE 115 may receive grant message 376 from network entity 350. For example, network entity 350 may receive and process message 370 to determine that subset of antenna elements 314 (or at least a different subset of antenna elements) is to be used by UE 115 in communicating in the second communication direction).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Raghavan '830 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of communicating between network entities via a subset of antenna elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Raghavan '830 to create the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to receive a configuration indicating a grant of RSs for use with a subset of antenna elements across one or more antenna modules.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to indicate the subset of antenna elements designated for communicating in a particular direction.
Regarding claim 8, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to receive a configuration indicating a grant of RSs for use with a subset of antenna elements across one or more antenna modules.
However, Raghavan '830 discloses the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions to cause the apparatus to determine beam weights for use with the one or more antenna modules based on the grant of the RSs ([0031] Based on receiving the message from the UE, the network entity may transmit, to the UE, a grant message that indicates that the UE is allowed to use the subset of antenna elements for communicating in the second communication direction … the UE may perform one or more calibration operations on the second set of beamforming weights prior to applying the second set of beamforming weights to communications in the second communication direction. Alternatively, the UE may receive, from the network entity, one or more channel state information reference signals (CSI-RSs) based on transmitting the message, and the UE may generate a set of beamforming weights for use in communicating in the second communication direction based on one or more beam measurement operations performed on the one or more CSI-RS).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Raghavan '830 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of communicating between network entities via a subset of antenna elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Raghavan '830 to create the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to determine beam weights for use with the one or more antenna modules based on the grant of the RSs.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to indicate the subset of antenna elements designated for communicating in a particular direction.
Regarding claim 15, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to transmit a configuration indicating a grant of RSs for use with a subset of antenna elements across one or more antenna modules
However, Raghavan '830 discloses the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to transmit a configuration indicating a grant of RSs for use with a subset of antenna elements across one or more antenna modules ([0088] Based on transmitting message 370 to network entity 350, UE 115 may receive grant message 376 from network entity 350. For example, network entity 350 may receive and process message 370 to determine that subset of antenna elements 314 (or at least a different subset of antenna elements) is to be used by UE 115 in communicating in the second communication direction).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Raghavan '830 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of communicating between network entities via a subset of antenna elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Raghavan '830 to create the apparatus, wherein the one or more processors are further configured, individually or in any combination, to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to transmit a configuration indicating a grant of RSs for use with a subset of antenna elements across one or more antenna modules.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to indicate the subset of antenna elements designated for communicating in a particular direction.
Regarding claim 22, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the method, further comprising receiving a configuration indicating a grant of RSs for use with a subset of antenna elements across one or more antenna modules.
However, Raghavan '830 discloses the method, further comprising receiving a configuration indicating a grant of RSs for use with a subset of antenna elements across one or more antenna modules ([0088] Based on transmitting message 370 to network entity 350, UE 115 may receive grant message 376 from network entity 350. For example, network entity 350 may receive and process message 370 to determine that subset of antenna elements 314 (or at least a different subset of antenna elements) is to be used by UE 115 in communicating in the second communication direction).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Raghavan '830 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of communicating between network entities via a subset of antenna elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Raghavan '830 to create the method, further comprising receiving a configuration indicating a grant of RSs for use with a subset of antenna elements across one or more antenna modules.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to indicate the subset of antenna elements designated for communicating in a particular direction.
Regarding claim 23, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the method, further comprising determining beam weights for use with the one or more antenna modules based on the grant of the RSs.
However, Raghavan '830 discloses the method, further comprising determining beam weights for use with the one or more antenna modules based on the grant of the RSs ([0031] Based on receiving the message from the UE, the network entity may transmit, to the UE, a grant message that indicates that the UE is allowed to use the subset of antenna elements for communicating in the second communication direction … the UE may perform one or more calibration operations on the second set of beamforming weights prior to applying the second set of beamforming weights to communications in the second communication direction. Alternatively, the UE may receive, from the network entity, one or more channel state information reference signals (CSI-RSs) based on transmitting the message, and the UE may generate a set of beamforming weights for use in communicating in the second communication direction based on one or more beam measurement operations performed on the one or more CSI-RS).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Raghavan '830 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of communicating between network entities via a subset of antenna elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Raghavan '830 to create the method, , further comprising determining beam weights for use with the one or more antenna modules based on the grant of the RSs.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to indicate the subset of antenna elements designated for communicating in a particular direction.
Regarding claim 30, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, fails to disclose the method, further comprising transmitting a configuration indicating a grant of RSs for use with a subset of antenna elements across one or more antenna modules.
However, Raghavan '830 discloses the method, further comprising transmitting a configuration indicating a grant of RSs for use with a subset of antenna elements across one or more antenna modules ([0088] Based on transmitting message 370 to network entity 350, UE 115 may receive grant message 376 from network entity 350. For example, network entity 350 may receive and process message 370 to determine that subset of antenna elements 314 (or at least a different subset of antenna elements) is to be used by UE 115 in communicating in the second communication direction).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Raghavan '830 are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of communicating between network entities via a subset of antenna elements.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320, and Raghavan '830 to create the method, further comprising transmitting a configuration indicating a grant of RSs for use with a subset of antenna elements across one or more antenna modules.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to indicate the subset of antenna elements designated for communicating in a particular direction.
Claims 9 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akkarakaran in view of Raghavan '577, Raghavan '320, and Raghavan '830, as applied to claims 1, 10, 16, or 25 above, and in further view of Friend et al (EP3621216A1) (hereinafter "Friend").
Regarding claim 9, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320 and Raghavan '830, fails to disclose the apparatus, wherein the subset of antenna elements combined across the one or more antenna modules are selected according to a fixed or deterministic polarization combination.
However, Friend discloses the apparatus, wherein the subset of antenna elements combined across the one or more antenna modules are selected according to a fixed or deterministic polarization combination ([0043] each antenna element of the plurality of antenna elements 202 is fixed to a corresponding orientation. For example, each antenna element is fixed to a respective orientation that enables generation of a signal beam that defines a corresponding cell of the plurality of cells 122 of FIG. 1.).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320 and Raghavan '830, and Friend are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of antenna configurations for the generation of a plurality of beams.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320 and Raghavan '830, with Friend to create the apparatus, wherein the subset of antenna elements combined across the one or more antenna modules are selected according to a fixed or deterministic polarization combination.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to reduce the overall antenna complexity and cost.
Regarding claim 24, Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320 and Raghavan '830, fails to disclose the method, wherein the subset of antenna elements combined across the one or more antenna modules are selected according to a fixed or deterministic polarization combination.
However, Friend discloses the method, wherein the subset of antenna elements combined across the one or more antenna modules are selected according to a fixed or deterministic polarization combination ([0043] each antenna element of the plurality of antenna elements 202 is fixed to a corresponding orientation. For example, each antenna element is fixed to a respective orientation that enables generation of a signal beam that defines a corresponding cell of the plurality of cells 122 of FIG. 1.).
Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320 and Raghavan '830, and Friend are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because both are in the same endeavor of antenna configurations for the generation of a plurality of beams.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a motivation to combine the teachings of Akkarakaran, as modified by Raghavan '577 and Raghavan '320 and Raghavan '830, with Friend to create the method, wherein the subset of antenna elements combined across the one or more antenna modules are selected according to a fixed or deterministic polarization combination.
The motivation to combine both references would come from the need to reduce the overall antenna complexity and cost.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 10, 16 and 25, and associated dependent claims have been considered, but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 D. Little whose telephone number is (571)272-5748. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8-6 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, Nishant Divecha can be reached at 571-270-3125. 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.
/D LITTLE/ Examiner, Art Unit 2419
/Nishant Divecha/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2419