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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Yapici et al. for the "PATTERN SELECTION FOR ARRAY PUNCTURING" filed 11/27/2023 has been examined. Claims 1-30 are pending in the present application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
5. Claims 1-8, 11-19, 22-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haustein et al. (US#2023/0189315) in view of Eder et al. (US#2025/0039805).
Regarding claim 1, the references disclose a system and method for providing pattern selection for array puncturing in wireless communication system, according to the essential features of the claim. Haustein et al. (US#2023/0189315) discloses a first apparatus for wireless communications, comprising: a memory system; and a processor system coupled to the memory system (see Figs. 5, 6, para [1671] for the structure of the devices includes processor, and memory) and configured to: obtain a message for transmission to a second apparatus (see Figs. 3a-d; para [0145]-[0146]: In connection with the example illustrated in Fig. 3a, the device 30 may transmit a signal to the communication partner 18); determine a time slot of a set of time slots for transmitting the message (Fig. 4b, 29b; para [0228]-[0230], [1247]: UE is observing interference occurrences over a selected window of time and concludes/determines suitable time slots/BWP for future transmission by the gNB to the UE. See area 2914, 2918 time slot); determine a symbol of the time slot (para [0101]: slots are an illustrative example of a radio resource which comprise, alternatively or in addition, same resource blocks and/or subcarriers and slots/symbol on time-domain - different symbols in a slot); transmit a beamformed transmission including a portion of the message for transmission towards the second apparatus (para [0140], [0169], [0174]: the device 30 may be configured for controlling a selection of an antenna port used for forming the antenna radiation pattern 10, of a sub-array of an antenna array used for forming the antenna radiation pattern 10. For addressing the interference, alternatively or in addition, the device may be configured for implementing a pattern to the antenna radiation pattern in view of a blanking, puncturing or power boosting pattern).
However, Haustein reference does not disclose expressly wherein determine a number of antenna elements of the first apparatus to disable; and disable the number of antenna elements during the symbol of the time slot when transmitting the beamformed transmission in a direction other than towards the second apparatus. In the same field of endeavor, Eder et al. (US#2025/0039805) teaches in Figs. 2, 3 the diagrams illustrated how an UE device may sweep a phased antenna array over different signal beams during a beam training interval with a wireless BS, in which the UE device 10 and BS 6 may perform a beam training or discovery operation to detect the optimal UE beam (e.g., the UE beam of UE device 10 that points towards BS 6) and the optimal BS beam (e.g., the BS beam of BS 6 that points towards UE device 10) for conveying wireless data between BS 6 and UE device 10. As such, the control circuitry may identify, based on the wireless performance metric data, a first set of the antennas 30-1, and 30-2 in the phased antenna array to disable during subsequent communications and a second set of antennas 30-3 through 30-N in the phased antenna array to keep active during subsequent communications (para [0039], [0044] & [0063]-[0070]: After the beam training interval, the transceiver may use the second set of antennas to convey wireless data with the BS while the first set of antennas are disabled)
One skilled in the art would have recognized the need for effectively and efficiently providing pattern selection for array puncturing in wireless communication system, and would have applied Eder’s detect antennas to disable for communicating with a wireless BS utilizing array tapering into Haustein’s techniques for handling of antenna radiation pattern in view of a transmission power of sidelobes. Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Eder’s electronic device with antenna tapering into Haustein’s interference detection and handling with the motivation being to provide a method and system for providing pattern selection for array puncturing in wireless communication systems
Regarding claim 2, Haustein et al. in view of Eder et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above, Haustein et al. further teach wherein the symbol includes at least one of data or a demodulation reference signal (DMRS)(para [0029]).
Regarding claim 3, Haustein et al. in view of Eder et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above, Haustein et al. further teach wherein the symbol is determined randomly (para [0245])
Regarding claim 4, Haustein et al. in view of Eder et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above, Haustein et al. further teach wherein the symbol is determined based on a radio frequency capability of the first apparatus (para [0142]).
Regarding claims 5, 6, Haustein et al. in view of Eder et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above, Haustein et al. further teach wherein the time slot is determined based on the message for transmission using slot aggregation in at least two aggregated slots, and wherein the time slot is determined based the at least two aggregated slots (para [0015]-[0016]).
Regarding claims 7, 8, Haustein et al. in view of Eder et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above, Eder et al. further teach wherein receive an indication to increase distortion; and determine the number of antenna elements to disable based on the indication to increase distortion, and perform a beam refinement process based on the indication to increase distortion (Figs. 5-7; parra [0092]-[0093]).
Regarding claim 11, Haustein et al. in view of Eder et al. teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as set forth above, Eder et al. further teach wherein determine an expected movement of the first apparatus; and determine the number of antenna elements to disable based on the expected movement (Fig. 2; para [0039], [0044]).
Regarding claims 12-19, 22, they are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 1-8, 11 examined above. Therefore, claims 12-19, 22 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed in paragraph above with respect to claims 1-8, 11.
Regarding claims 23-30, these claims differ from claims Haustein et al. (US#2023/0189315) in view of Eder et al. (US#2025/0039805) in that the claims recited a computer program product for performing the same basis of steps and apparatus of the prior arts as discussed in the rejection of claims 1-8, 11 examined above. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement a computer program product in Haustein in view of Eder for performing the steps and apparatus as recited in the claims with the motivation being to provide the efficient enhancement for providing pattern selection for array puncturing in wireless communication system, and easy to maintenance, upgrade.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 9, 10, 20, 21 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
7. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein to transmit, to the second apparatus, an indication to generate a reference signal received power (RSRP) report based on the indication to increase distortion; receive, from the second apparatus, the RSRP report; and determine the number of antenna elements to disable based on the RSRP report; wherein to receive, from the second apparatus, an indication of a size of a distortion free angular
gap; and determine the number of antenna elements to disable based on the indicated size of the distortion free angular gap, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Eleftheriadis et al. (US#11,451,277) is cited to show systems and methods of controlling a component of a network node in a communication system.
The Jung et al. (US#10,595,271) shows method, apparatus, and system for terminal identification and paging signal transmission for terminal in power saving state.
The Jiang et al. (US#11,522,588) shows apparatus, system, and method for adaptive beamforming in wireless networks.
The Marupaduga et al. (US#12,506,523) shows dynamically detecting and correcting the deactivation of beamforming.
The Xu et al. (US#12,395,971) shows slot format DCI for CLI measurement resource configuration.
The Liou et al. (US#10,841,914) shows method and apparatus for channel usage in unlicensed spectrum considering beamformed transmission in a wireless communication system.
The Elhadeedy (US#12,074,667) shows antenna monitoring and selection.
The Kuwahara et al. (US#7,751,381) shows wireless BS using weighting elements of an array antenna.
The Bengtsson et al. (US#11,405,877) shows downlink synchronization signals.
The Schwartz et al. (US#2021/0184372) shows phased array antenna system including amplitude tapering system.
The Yapici et al. (US#2025/0266894) shows interference management for array puncturing.
9. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
10. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
11. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
02/09/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477