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 .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as "configured to" or "so that"; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claim 30 in this application use the word “means for”, so they are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification appears to show the structures provided in para [0006-0007] and Figs. 5 are interpreted as the corresponding structures for the "means for" limitations.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1- 6, 10-13, 16-19, 23-26, 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negus et al. (US 20140226698 A1, hereinafter Negus) in view of Nilsson et al. (US 20250112711 A1, hereinafter Nilsson).
Claim 1: Negus teaches A network node for wireless communication (Fig. 6E, element ECHO-6E-1, ECHO-6E-2, Fig. 6F, element ECHO-6F-1/2, Abstract, “ECHO repeater devices for enhancement of a wireless propagation channel for point to point or point to multipoint radio configurations”), comprising:
one or more memories ([0167], “the ECHO device initializes upon power-up. Initialization may include self-tests, configuration, reading of stored parameters from non-volatile memory”, [0182], “The instant ECHO device uses the control signature of a specific sub-channel to determine if the desired ECHO configuration stored in the non-volatile memory is feasible and that communications with the destination and source IBR or ECHO devices allow communications”);
and one or more processors (Fig. 8E, element 840E. Fig. 8I, element 8I-500), coupled to the one or more memories, configured ([0208], “One or more of the methodologies or functions described herein may be embodied in a computer-readable medium on which is stored one or more sets of instructions (e.g., software). The software may reside, completely or at least partially, within memory and/or within a processor during execution thereof”) to cause the network node to:
receive, via a set of reception antenna groups (Fig. 8E, elements 803e-1, 803e-2, Fig. 8F, elements 803F-1, 803F-2, [0157], “two receive chains and two receive antennas, polarization isolation between the two receive chains and antennas may be used or alternatively spatial separation may be utilized in conjunction with transmit beam forming from the transmitting IBRs or ECHO devices … Such receive beam forming capability may be utilized in embodiments with two or more receive antennas and receive chains utilized”) having a first antenna spacing that is independent from a distance between the network node and a transmitting device (Fig. 10, Fig. 11, [0190], “In an ECHO device, normally two such antenna arrays having some or all of the antenna panels depicted in FIG. 10 are utilized with an azimuthal directional bias different for each array or for each collection of one or more such antenna panels to optimize link performance between the instant ECHO and the source and destination devices”, [0195], “For ECHO applications where multiple such arrays (or sub-elements thereof) may be physically and azimuthal directionally disparate as depicted”), signals associated with a spatially multiplexed communication (Fig. 8E, [0156], “frequency translating feedback canceller 870E-1 or 870E-2 to have more than two RF output ports allowing for a plurality of transmit antennas beyond the two transmit antennas 803E-3 and 4, depicted in FIG. 8E, allowing for additional spatial beam forming technique … more than two receive chains and receive antennas may be utilized with additional frequency translating feedback cancellers, allowing for additional receive signals for the support of more than two streams based on polarization or based upon spatial multiplexing or separation”) having a first number of multiple layers per polarization;
and forward, via a set of transmission antenna groups (Fig. 8F, elements 803F-3, 803F-4, [0159], “providing for feedback cancellation directly into the receivers associated with receive antennas 803F-1 and 803F-2. Such a structure allows for direct frequency selective cancellation from each of the frequency translating feedback cancellers (with "I"=4) into each of the receive channels, as well as providing for transmit signal and/or cancellation signal transmission from each of the transmit antennas 803F-4 and 803F-3 … each frequency translating feedback canceller may be optimized to additionally provide for the transmission of the repeated or relayed signals so as to optimize their reception at the intended receiving IBR or target ECHO devices”) having a second antenna spacing that is independent from a distance between the network node and a receiving device (Fig. 10, Fig. 11, [0190], “In an ECHO device, normally two such antenna arrays having some or all of the antenna panels depicted in FIG. 10 are utilized with an azimuthal directional bias different for each array or for each collection of one or more such
antenna panels to optimize link performance between the instant ECHO and the source and destination devices”), the signals associated with the spatially multiplexed communication (Fig. 8E, Fig. 8F, [0156], “frequency translating feedback canceller 870E-1 or 870E-2 to have more than two RF output ports allowing for a plurality of transmit antennas beyond the two transmit antennas 803E-3 and 4, depicted in FIG. 8E, allowing for additional spatial beam forming technique”, [0159], “Providing for direct feedback cancellation to both receivers from each of the feedback cancellers allows for further degrees of freedom for the use of the transmit antennas to be used for transmit spatial beam forming rather than feedback cancellation in specific embodiments”) having a second number of multiple layers per polarization.
However, Negus does not explicitly teach the reception signals having a first number of multiple layers per polarization, and the transmission signals having a second number of multiple layers per polarization.
Nilsson, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the reception signals having a first number of multiple layers per polarization, and the transmission signals having a second number of multiple layers per polarization ([0016], “In general ADCs/DACs may be part of the antenna circuitry”, [0023], “Each DAC and/or ADC may be connected or connectable to two subarrays (or sub-subarrays), wherein the two subarrays (or subsubarrays) may be associated to different polarizations of signaling. Using different polarisations allows easy multi-layer transmissions”, wherein DAC is associated with transmission antenna and ADC is associated with reception antenna. [0047], “V and H polarization antennas (Vertical and Horizontal, other combinations may be considered) may be used to provide two layers, and if more is needed, then the array may be divided into smaller (sub)arrays. Typically, two subarrays may be used to transmit/receive 4 layers, and four subarrays to transmit/receive 8 layers”, disclose number of multiple layers per polarization is corresponding to selected subarrays).
Negus and Nilsson are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Negus and the features of the reception signals having a first number of multiple layers per polarization, and the transmission signals having a second number of multiple layers per polarization as taught by Nilsson, for the benefit of allowing easy multi-layer transmissions using different polarizations (paragraph [0023]), and dividing up the array into sub-arrays to support for MU-MIMO application (paragraph [0047]).
Claim 16 is a method of claim 1, thus is analyzed and rejected according to claim 1.
Claim 29 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 1 and Negus further teaches A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication ([0208], “One or more of the methodologies or functions described herein may be embodied in a computer-readable medium on which is stored one or more sets of instructions (e.g., software). The software may reside, completely or at least partially, within memory and/or within a processor during execution thereof”).
Claim 30 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 1.
Claim 2: The combination of Negus and Nilsson teaches the network node of claim 1, Nilsson additionally teaches wherein the first number of multiple layers is equal to the second number of multiple layers (alternative), or wherein the first number of multiple layers is different from the second number of multiple layers (Fig. 2, [0017], “Each DAC may be associated to a different one of the plurality of subarrays, and/or each ADC may be associated to a different one of the subarrays. A subarray may comprise one or more subsubarrays, e.g. two subsubarrays for different polarisation of radio signalling”).
The motivation for combining Negus and Nilsson regarding to the claim 1 is also applied to claim 2.
Claim 3: Negus teaches the network node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to forward the signals, are configured to cause the network node to amplify and forwarding the signals (Fig. 8E, elements 860E-1, 860E-2, Fig. 8A, elements 855, 856, [0144], “Transmit AGC amplifiers 855 and 856 are controlled by controller 840 utilizing Tx1Gain and Tx2Gain control signals. The outputs of the variable gain amplifiers 855 and 856 are coupled to power amplifiers 860 and 861 respectively which are then coupled to transmit antenna structures 803-3 and 803-2 respectively”).
Claim 4: The combination of Negus and Nilsson teaches the network node of claim 1, Nilsson additionally teaches wherein the first number of multiple layers per polarization comprises three or more layers per polarization, or wherein the second number of multiple layers per polarization comprises three or more layers per polarization ([0023], “Each DAC and/or ADC may be connected or connectable to two subarrays (or sub-subarrays)”, [0047], “V and H polarization antennas (Vertical and Horizontal, other combinations may be considered) may be used to provide two layers, and if more is needed, then the array may be divided into smaller (sub)arrays. Typically, two subarrays may be used to transmit/receive 4 layers, and four subarrays to transmit/receive 8 layers”).
The motivation for combining Negus and Nilsson regarding to the claim 1 is also applied to claim 4.
Claim 17 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 16 and claim 4.
Claim 5: Negus teaches the network node of claim 1, wherein the set of reception antenna groups comprises a first antenna group and a second antenna group, wherein the set of transmission antenna groups comprises a third antenna group and a fourth antenna group, and wherein the first antenna group maps to the third antenna group and the second antenna group maps to the fourth antenna group (Fig. 8E, element 803E-1/2 for reception group 1 and 2, 803E-3/4 for transmission group 3 and 4, [155], “The outputs of 870E-1, 2 are then coupled to Combiners 813E-1 and 813E-2, which respectively combines Frequency Translating Feedback Canceller outputs, which are respectively coupled to PAs 960E-1, 2 and Transmit Antennas 803E-4, 3 respectively … the signal received on 803E-1 may mainly be transmitted out of RFOut-2 of 870E-1 and Antenna 803E-3 while RFOut-1 port may be used to generate a cancellation signal to further isolate the coupling from 803E-3 antenna to Receive Antenna 803E-1 whereas the opposite is true with the Feedback Canceller 870E-2”, disclose first antenna group (803E-1) mapping to third antenna group (803E-4), and second antenna group (803E-2) mapping to forth antenna group (803E-3), [0156], “more than two receive chains and receive antennas may be utilized with additional frequency translating feedback cancellers, allowing for additional receive signals for the support of more than two streams based on polarization or based upon spatial multiplexing or separation”).
Claim 18 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 16 and claim 5.
Claim 6: Negus teaches the network node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to forward the signals, are configured to cause the network node to apply one or more of: a phase shift (alternative), a delay (alternative), amplification (Fig. 8E, element 860E-1, 860E-2, Fig. 8A, element 855, 856, [0144], “Transmit AGC amplifiers 855 and 856 are controlled by controller 840 utilizing Tx1Gain and Tx2Gain control signals. The outputs of the variable gain amplifiers 855 and 856 are coupled to power amplifiers 860 and 861 respectively which are then coupled to transmit antenna structures 803-3 and 803-2 respectively”), addition (alternative), or attenuation (alternative).
Claim 19 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 16 and claim 6.
Claim 10: The combination of Negus and Nilsson teaches the network node of claim 1, Nilsson additionally teaches wherein the set of reception antenna groups includes a first number of antenna groups that is at least as large as the first number of multiple layers per polarization, and wherein the set of transmission antenna groups includes a second number of antenna groups that is at least as large as the second number of multiple layers per polarization ([0099], “It may be considered that an antenna arrangement is associated to a (specific and/or single) radio node, e.g. a configuring or informing or scheduling radio node, e.g. to be controlled or controllable by the radio node. An antenna arrangement associated to a UE or terminal may be smaller (e.g., in size and/or number of antenna elements or arrays) than the antenna arrangement associated to a network node”, wherein the number of multiple layers is derived for antenna arrangement associated to a UE).
The motivation for combining Negus and Nilsson regarding to the claim 1 is also applied to claim 10.
Claim 23 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 16 and claim 10.
Claim 11: Negus teaches The network node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to cause the network node to: perform first beam management with a first wireless communication device (WCD) that transmits the signals to the network node; and perform second beam management with a second WCD that receives the signals from the network node, wherein the set of reception antenna groups is mapped to the set of transmission antenna groups based at least in part on performing the first beam management and the second beam management (Fig. 8E, Fig. 8F, Fig. 9A, element 930A, 935A, [0155-0157], disclose network node (repeater, relay) receiving the signal from first WCD and process the data (e.g. amplify, filtering, isolating/cancelling), and transmit the processed data to the second WCD with beam forming techniques. Fig. 6D, [0134], “provide for the opportunity for further performance enhancement utilizing transmitter and receiver beam forming techniques within the IBRs to provide for additional isolation and performance relative to the forward path and reverse path between the two IBRs”).
Claim 24 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 16 and claim 11.
Claim 12: Negus teaches the network node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to receive and forwarding the signals, are configured to cause the network node to: maintain the signals as analog signals, and leave the signals in a received frequency without converting to an intermediate frequency or a baseband frequency (Fig. 8F, [0159], “ with the additional functionality of feedback canceller 870E-1 and 2, having an additional output port coupled to each of the receive combiners 875F1 and 875F2, providing for feedback cancellation directly into the receivers associated with receive antennas 803F-1 and 803F-2. Such a structure allows for direct frequency
selective cancellation from each of the frequency translating feedback cancellers (with "I"=4) into each of the receive channels, as well as providing for transmit signal and/or cancellation signal transmission from each of the transmit antennas 803F-4 and 803F-3”).
Claim 25 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 16 and claim 12.
Claim 13: Negus teaches The network node of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to receive the signals, are configured to cause the network node to apply a first analog weight vector associated with receiving the signals from a first wireless communication device (WCD) (Fig.8E, elements AGC1, AGC2, [0155], “the input signals from Antennas 803E1 and 803E2 are passed to Receive Chains 810E-1 and 810E-2 which have Gain Control Signals AGC-1 and AGC-2 respectively and coupled to Controller 840E”. [0065], “The parameters may be radio frequency (RF) parameters associated with phased array weights or settings for the repeater device and may be related to at least two of the following: a first receiver signal associated with the repeater device, a second receiver signal associated with the repeater device, a first transmitter signal associated with the repeater device, and a second transmitter signal associated with the repeater device”), and wherein the one or more processors, to cause the network node to transmit the signals, are configured to cause the network node to apply a second analog weight vector associated with transmitting the signals to a second WCD (Fig. 8A, element 855, 856, [0144], “Such an adjustment may act as a phase weighting capability for the signal transmitted out of antenna structure 803-2. TxGain1 provides for gain settings of the transmitted signal from antenna 802-2, while TxGain2 provides for the gain weighting of signal transmitted from 803-3”).
Claim 26 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 16 and claim 13.
Claims 7-9, 15, 20-22, 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negus et al. (US 20140226698 A1, hereinafter Negus) in view of Nilsson et al. (US 20250112711 A1, hereinafter Nilsson), and further in view of Bavand et al. (US 2023079021 A1, hereinafter Bavand).
Claim 7: Negus does not explicitly teach the network node of claim 1, wherein the first number of multiple layers is associated with one or more of: an aperture size of a wireless communication device that transmitted the signals to the network node, an aperture size of the reception antenna groups of the network node, an equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) of the wireless communication device that transmitted the signals to the network node, or a distance between the network node and the wireless communication device that transmitted the signals to the network node.
Bavand, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the first number of multiple layers is associated with one or more of: an aperture size of a wireless communication device that transmitted the signals to the network node (alternative), an aperture size of the reception antenna groups of the network node (alternative), an equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) of the wireless communication device that transmitted the signals to the network node ([0070], “Assuming a radio network node is limited to supported up to L layers in MU-MIMO … The baseline for comparison is when configuredMaxTxPower of the cell is reduced to satisfy EIRP limitation”, [0119], “the maximum gain among the layers is selected to guarantee that the EIRP restriction is never violated”, [0098], “If multiple
layers are transmitted, the transmit power is split among the layers”), or a distance between the network node and the wireless communication device that transmitted the signals to the network node (alternative).
Negus and Bavand are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Negus and the features of determining the number of multiple layers based on EIRP, as taught by Bavand, for the benefit of reducing EIRP when multiple layers are sent in different directions, which will result in less power backoff and consequently more coverage and throughput (paragraph [0098]), and less safety distance is required if EIRP is smaller (paragraph [0052]).
Claim 20 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 16 and claim 7.
Claim 8: Negus does not explicitly teach the network node of claim 1, wherein the second number of multiple layers is associated with one or more of: the first number of multiple layers, an aperture size of the network node associated with the transmission antenna groups, an aperture size of a wireless communication device that receives the signals from the network node, an equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) of the network node, or a distance between the network node and the wireless communication device that receives the signals from the network node.
Bavand, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the second number of multiple layers is associated with one or more of: the first number of multiple layers (alternative), an aperture size of the network node associated with the transmission antenna groups (alternative), an aperture size of a wireless communication device that receives the signals from the network node (alternative), an equivalent isotopically radiated power (EIRP) of the network node ([0070], “Assuming a radio network node is limited to supported up to L layers in MU-MIMO … The baseline for comparison is when configuredMaxTxPower of the cell is reduced to satisfy EIRP limitation”, [0119], “the maximum gain among the layers is selected to guarantee that the EIRP restriction is never violated”, [0098], “If multiple layers are transmitted, the transmit power is split among the layers”), or a distance between the network node and the wireless communication device that receives the signals from the network node (alternative).
The motivation for combining Negus and Bavand regarding to the claim 7 is also applied to claim 8.
Claim 21 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 16 and claim 8.
Claim 9: Negus does not explicitly teach the network node of claim 1, wherein the network node is positioned at a location associated with a first number of supported numbers of multiple layers per polarization for receiving from a first wireless communication device (WCD), wherein the location is associated with a second number of supported numbers of multiple layers per polarization for transmitting to a second WCD, and wherein the first number and the second number have a difference that satisfies a threshold.
Bavand, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein the network node is positioned at a location associated with a first number of supported numbers of multiple layers per polarization for receiving from a first wireless communication device (WCD), wherein the location is associated with a second number of supported numbers of multiple layers per polarization for transmitting to a second WCD, and wherein the first number and the second number have a difference that satisfies a threshold ([0052], “Effective isotopically radiated power (EIRP) is a metric that captures both transmit power and beamforming gain. EIRP is the product of transmitter power and the antenna gain in a given direction relative to an isotropic antenna of a radio transmitter. The more beamforming gain the radio network node has, the more EIRP it results in, and hence the more safety distance will be required”, disclose safety distance is determined by EIRP. [0070], disclose number of multiple layers is associated EIRP. Combining [0052] and [0070], location of WCD is associated with number of multiple layers. [0059], “the EIRP limit according to some embodiments may enforce a threshold on EIRP and selectively apply a required backpoff on all downlink channels/signals automatically”, wherein first and second WCD are at the different location, so the maximum EIRP threshold are different).
The motivation for combining Negus and Bavand regarding to the claim 7 is also applied to claim 9.
Claim 22 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 16 and claim 9.
Claim 15: Negus does not explicitly teach the network node of claim 1, wherein a supported first number of layers per polarization is independent from a first distance between the network node and a transmitting device, wherein first distance satisfies a first threshold, wherein a supported second number of layers per polarization is independent from a second distance between the network node and a receiving device, and wherein the second distance satisfies a second threshold.
Bavand, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein a supported first number of layers per polarization is independent from a first distance between the network node and a transmitting device, wherein first distance satisfies a first threshold, wherein a supported second number of layers per polarization is independent from a second distance between the network node and a receiving device, and wherein the second distance satisfies a second threshold ([0118], “Considering the fact that radiation pattern of antenna subarray is not is isotropic in most cases, further improvements can be made to the system performance (in terms of throughput and coverage) by considering a 2D or 3D direction radiation pattern instead of using the maximum gain. This approach is only applicable to UE specific signals with UE specific beamforming. That is, the beam should be directed towards a different direction than the broadside of the array”, wherein subarray may be determined based on 2Dor 3D direction radiation pattern. [0119], “the maximum gain among the layers is selected to guarantee that the EIRP restriction is never violated”, [0098], “If multiple layers are transmitted, the transmit power is split among the layers”, since first and second WCD are different WCD, the required EIRP restriction (or threshold) could be different).
The motivation for combining Negus and Bavand regarding to the claim 7 is also applied to claim 15.
Claim 28 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 16 and claim 15.
Claims 14, 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Negus et al. (US 20140226698 A1, hereinafter Negus) in view of Nilsson et al. (US 20250112711 A1, hereinafter Nilsson), and further in view of Moshfeghi et al. (US 20230124980 A1, hereinafter Moshfeghi).
Claim 14: Negus does not explicitly teach the network node of claim 1, wherein a number of antenna groups of the set of reception antenna groups and the set of transmission antenna groups is associated with support for at least a minimum rank for communications between a first wireless communication device (WCD) associated with transmitting the signals to the network node and a second WCD associated with receiving the signals from the network node.
Moshfeghi, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches wherein a number of antenna groups of the set of reception antenna groups and the set of transmission antenna groups is associated with support for at least a minimum rank for communications between a first wireless communication device (WCD) associated with transmitting the signals to the network node and a second WCD associated with receiving the signals from the network node (Fig. 5A, [0070], “the relay device 500 may adaptively select antenna(s) used in receiving and/or transmitting the relayed data streams, to minimize the number of antennas used. the relay device 500 may measure the signal power of the signal received from source device (502A)”, [0071], “determining and/or selecting the transmit side antennas may depend on the distance to the destination device 502B, the transmit power per antenna, and/or the desired width of the antenna pattern”).
Negus and Moshfeghi are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of wireless communication. Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the system of Negus and the features of determining the number of antenna groups of the set of reception and transmission antenna based on at least a minimum rank for communications, as taught by Moshfeghi, for the benefit of improving the effectiveness and/or efficiency of relay operations (paragraph [0070]).
Claim 27 is analyzed and rejected according to claim 16 and claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. The closest prior art reference is Rusek et al. (US 20210152219 A1, hereinafter Rusek), which describes a method and apparatus for millimeter-wave MIMO mode selection.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YONGHONG ZHAO whose telephone number is (571)272-4089. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday 9:00 am - 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, NICHOLAS JENSEN can be reached on (571) 270-5443. 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.
/Y.Z./Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472