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 .
The IDS has been considered by the examiner.
The specification and drawings have been accepted by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 8 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 2020/0336178) in view of Spreadbury (US 2008/0284641) and further in view of ARYAFAR (Us 2019/0123806).
Referring to claim 1, Ma discloses a method performed by a base station (FIG. 1,3, and Par. 39, “base stations 170a-170b are … configured to implement some or all of the functionality and/or embodiments described herein”) for mitigating signal degradation (Par. 63, “ performs channel measurements”) in joint transmissions from a user equipment- coordination set (UECS) that includes multiple user equipments (UEs) (FIG. 2, FIG. 3, Abstract and Par. 2, 4, 12, 53, “cooperative UE group“, “a cooperative transmission, by the multiple UEs, of source data from a source UE”, note that the Virtual UE cooperative UE group is equivalent to joint transmissions from a user equipment- coordination set (UECS) that includes multiple user equipments (UEs)), the method comprising:
analyzing a first joint transmission from multiple UEs in the UECS (Par. 66, 92, “Based on the channel measurements, the network equipment determines one or more transmission parameters and signals the parameter(s) to the participating UEs”, ““UL cooperative transmission as disclosed herein, including cooperative multi-UE MIMO transmission”. Note that channel measurement implies that channel is analyzed. Further, note that the multiple physical UEs in a UE cooperation group or cooperative group and the Virtual UE cooperative UE group is equivalent to joint transmissions from a user equipment- coordination set (UECS) that includes multiple user equipments (UEs));
determining the first joint transmission (Par. 72, 73, 82, “Based on the channel measurements, the network equipment determines one or more transmission parameters such as MIMO transmission parameters and signals the parameter(s) to the participating UEs. For joint precoding, the network equipment determines the transmission parameter(s)”)
and directing the multiple UEs participating in the UECS to add signal adjustments to a second joint transmission (Par. 72, 73, “measurements of the demodulation pilots from the participating UEs by network equipment”. Par. 92, 95 and 96, “FIG. 7 is a signal flow diagram illustrating an example of closed loop cooperative joint precoding based UL transmission”, “Based on SRS measurements by network equipment, the network equipment determines whether the joint UL precoder should be modified, and if so, the network equipment signals at least modified parameters to each participating UE”, note that the network device (base station) determines the joint signal transmission (e.g., measurements of the demodulation pilots from the participating UEs) and signals the UE to adjust the Uplink precoder, which reads on directing the UE to adjust Uplink signals), the directing comprising directing the multiple UEs in the UECS to add signal adjustments to their respective uplink signals (Par. 92, 95, “the network equipment determines whether the joint UL precoder should be modified, and if so, the network equipment signals at least modified parameters”, note that the UL precoder is the uplink signal that’s being adjusted or modified and the network device signals (directs) UEs to adjust them).
Ma is not relied on for determining the transmission fails to meet a performance metric.
In an analogous art, ARYAFAR discloses determining the transmission fails to meet a performance metric (Par. 92, “determining that an uplink transmission performance is below a threshold level”, note that performance below a threshold level is equivalent to transmission failing to meet a performance metric).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Ma by incorporating the teachings of AFYAFAR so determining of signal quality is compared to a specific threshold so a standard is set up for quality, for the purpose of providing clear instruction on when to make adjustments. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
The combination of Ma/ARYAFAR is silent on the limitation, “random signal adjustments”.
In an analogous art, Spreadbury discloses directing random signal adjustments (Par. 9, “modify the signal randomly, as described . . . to overcome external interference”, note that signals are randomly modified or adjusted in order to overcome interference. Random signal modification reads on random signal adjustment).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination by incorporating the teachings of Spreadbury so that unpredictable signal degradation would be corrected, for the purpose of improving signal quality and optimizing performance in unpredictable systems. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Referring to claim 8, the combination of Ma/Spreadbury/ARYAFAR discloses the method as recited in claim 1, further comprising: requesting, as the second joint transmission, a retransmission of the first joint transmission (Ma, Par. 72, 73, “measurements of the demodulation pilots from the participating UEs by network equipment”. Par. 92, 95 and 96, “Based on SRS measurements by network equipment, the network equipment determines whether the joint UL precoder should be modified, and if so, the network equipment signals at least modified parameters to each participating UE”, note that the network device (base station) determines the joint signal transmission is not satisfactory and signals the UEs to adjust the Uplink precoder, so that the UEs make an adjustment inherently for second or subsequent joint transmission, which reads on directing the UE to adjust Uplink signals and send a retransmission of the first joint transmission).
Referring to claim 19, Ma discloses an apparatus (FIG. 1-3, Par. 39, “base stations 170a-170b”) comprising: a processor; and computer-readable storage media comprising instructions, responsive to execution by the processor (FIG. 13B and Pr. 219, “base station, which is illustrative of network equipment, could include a processor and a non-transitory computer readable storage medium, such as the processing unit 1350 and memory 1358 in FIG. 13B”), for directing the apparatus to:
analyze a first joint transmission from multiple UEs in the UECS (Par. 66, 92, “Based on the channel measurements, the network equipment determines one or more transmission parameters and signals the parameter(s) to the participating UEs”, ““UL cooperative transmission as disclosed herein, including cooperative multi-UE MIMO transmission”. Note that channel measurement implies that channel is analyzed. Further, note that the multiple physical UEs in a UE cooperation group or cooperative group and the Virtual UE cooperative UE group is equivalent to joint transmissions from a user equipment- coordination set (UECS) that includes multiple user equipments (UEs));
determine the first joint transmission (Par. 72, 73, 82, “Based on the channel measurements, the network equipment determines one or more transmission parameters such as MIMO transmission parameters and signals the parameter(s) to the participating UEs. For joint precoding, the network equipment determines the transmission parameter(s)”),
and direct the multiple UEs participating in the UECS to add signal adjustments to a second joint transmission (Par. 72, 73, “measurements of the demodulation pilots from the participating UEs by network equipment”. Par. 92, 95 and 96, “FIG. 7 is a signal flow diagram illustrating an example of closed loop cooperative joint precoding based UL transmission”, “Based on SRS measurements by network equipment, the network equipment determines whether the joint UL precoder should be modified, and if so, the network equipment signals at least modified parameters to each participating UE”, note that the network device (base station) determines the joint signal transmission (e.g., measurements of the demodulation pilots from the participating UEs) and signals the UE to adjust the Uplink precoder, which reads on directing the UE to adjust Uplink signals), the direct comprising directing the multiple UEs in the UECS to add signal adjustments to their respective uplink signals (Par. 92, 95, “the network equipment determines whether the joint UL precoder should be modified, and if so, the network equipment signals at least modified parameters”, note that the UL precoder is the uplink signal that’s being adjusted or modified and the network device signals (directs) UEs to adjust them).
Ma is not relied on for determining the transmission fails to meet a performance metric.
In an analogous art, ARYAFAR discloses determining the transmission fails to meet a performance metric (Par. 92, “determining that an uplink transmission performance is below a threshold level”, note that performance below a threshold level is equivalent o transmission failing to meet a performance metric).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Ma by incorporating the teachings of AFYAFAR so determining of signal quality is compared to a specific threshold so a standard is set up for quality, for the purpose of providing clear instruction on when to make adjustments. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
The combination of Ma/ARYAFAR is silent on the limitation, “random signal adjustments”.
In an analogous art, Spreadbury discloses directing comprising random signal adjustments (Par. 9, “modify the signal randomly, as described . . . to overcome external interference”, note that signals are randomly modified or adjusted in order to overcome interference. Random signal modification reads on random signal adjustment).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination by incorporating the teachings of Spreadbury so that unpredictable signal degradation would be corrected, for the purpose of improving signal quality and optimizing performance in unpredictable systems. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 2020/0336178) in view of Spreadbury (US 2008/0284641) and further in view of ARYAFAR (Us 2019/0123806), and further in view of LEI (US 2022/0312501).
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Ma/Spreadbury/ARYAFAR discloses the method as recited in claim 1.
Ma further discloses the directing the multiple UEs in the UECS to add the signal adjustments further comprises: transmitting an of adjustment to the UECS; and directing each UE of the multiple UEs to select the signal adjustments (see Ma, Par. 92, “network equipment determines whether the joint UL precoder should be modified and if so, … signals at least modified parameter to each participating UE), note that the network (base station) signals each UE to modify signals according to modified parameters, which reads on transmitting adjustment to be made).
However, the combination of Ma/Spreadbury/ARYAFAR does not disclose the adjustment is transmitting a set of adjustment options to the UECs.
In an analogous art, LEI discloses (Par. 61, “the base station may transmit a set of transmission configuration options that indicate one or more transmission parameters the UE can change”, note that the UE is given several parameters as options to adjust or change them. Note that configuration change options is equivalent to adjustment options).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of combination by incorporating the teachings of LEI, for the purpose of providing several options to improve signal quality and thus increasing the possibility of signal improvement. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 2020/0336178) in view of Spreadbury (US 2008/0284641) and further in view of ARYAFAR (Us 2019/0123806), and further in view of HU (US 2019/0306821).
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Ma/Spreadbury/ARYAFAR discloses the method as recited in claim 1
The combination is silent on, wherein the directing the multiple UEs in the UECS to add the signal adjustments further comprises: directing the multiple UEs in the UECS to add, as the signal adjustments, one or more of: a phase shift; a time delay; a timing advance; or a transmission-beam change.
In an analogous art, HU discloses directing the multiple UEs in the UECS to add, as the signal adjustments, one or more of: a phase shift; a time delay; a timing advance; or a transmission-beam change (Par. 71, eNB base station sends a timing advance command to the terminal, to request the terminal to adjust the uplink timing advance TA value. Note that the claim language includes an alternative language “or”, thus, based on a broad interpretation only one of the alternatives is met. Specifically, the alternative “timing advance”).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of combination by incorporating the teachings of HU, for the purpose of providing several options to improve signal quality and thus increasing the possibility of signal improvement. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 2020/0336178) in view of Spreadbury (US 2008/0284641) and further in view of ARYAFAR (Us 2019/0123806) and further in view of Sitaram (US 10,165491).
Referring to claim 7, the combination of Ma/Spreadbury/ARYAFAR discloses the method as recited in claim 1.
The above combination is silent on determining that an uplink signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio, uplink SINR, falls below a first threshold value; or determining that an uplink block error rate, uplink BLER, exceeds a second threshold value.
In an analogous art, Sitaram discloses determining that an uplink signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio, uplink SINR, falls below a first threshold value; or determining that an uplink block error rate, uplink BLER, exceeds a second threshold value (Col. 6, lines 44-55, the base station could evaluate the UE's uplink SINR based on an evaluation of UE transmissions received by the base station, and the base station could likewise determine when the uplink SINR is lower than a configured threshold).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of combination by incorporating the teachings of Sitaram, for the purpose of allowing the UEs to make the adjustments on uplink SINR. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 2020/0336178) in view of Spreadbury (US 2008/0284641).
Referring to claim 9, Ma discloses a method performed by a coordinating user equipment (UE) of a user equipment-coordination set (UECS) for mitigating signal degradation in joint transmissions (FIG. 2, FIG. 3, Abstract and Par. 5, “a first UE, and involves transmitting, to a second UE over a sidelink, data from the first UE that is to be transmitted via cooperative transmission in an uplink direction to network equipment in a communication network” and Par. 2, 4, 12, 53, “cooperative UE group“, “a cooperative transmission, by the multiple UEs, of source data from a source UE”, note that the Virtual UE cooperative UE group is equivalent to joint transmissions from a user equipment- coordination set (UECS) that includes multiple user equipments (UEs)), the method comprising:
coordinating a first joint transmission of a first uplink signal from the UECS to a base station (Par. 66, 92, “Cooperative transmission, including MIMO transmission for example, is cooperative in the sense that all participating UEs transmit source data of the source UE”, “UL cooperative transmission as disclosed herein, including cooperative multi-UE MIMO transmission”, note that the UE group sent joint MIMO transmission); receiving, from the base station, a command to add signal adjustments to a second joint transmission to the base station (Par. 72, 73, “measurements of the demodulation pilots from the participating UEs by network equipment”. Par. 92, 95 and 96, “FIG. 7 is a signal flow diagram illustrating an example of closed loop cooperative joint precoding based UL transmission”, “Based on SRS measurements by network equipment, the network equipment determines whether the joint UL precoder should be modified, and if so, the network equipment signals at least modified parameters to each participating UE”, note that the network device (base station) determines the joint signal transmission (e.g., measurements of the demodulation pilots from the participating UEs) and signals the UE to adjust the Uplink precoder, which reads on directing the UE to adjust Uplink signals), the command comprising a direction to respective uplink signals of one or more UEs in the UECS (Par. 92, 95, “the network equipment determines whether the joint UL precoder should be modified, and if so, the network equipment signals at least modified parameters”, note that the UL precoder is the uplink signal that’s being adjusted or modified and the network device signals (directs) UEs to adjust them); and
directing one or more of the UEs in the UECS to add a respective signal adjustment to a respective uplink signal transmitted by the UE as part of a second joint transmission to the base station (Par. 72, 73, “measurements of the demodulation pilots from the participating UEs by network equipment”. Par. 92, 95 and 96, “Based on SRS measurements by network equipment, the network equipment determines whether the joint UL precoder should be modified, and if so, the network equipment signals at least modified parameters to each participating UE”, note that the network device (base station) determines the joint signal transmission is not satisfactory and signals the UEs to adjust the Uplink precoder, so that the UEs make an adjustment inherently for second or subsequent joint transmission, which reads on directing the UE to adjust Uplink signals and send a retransmission of the first joint transmission).
Ma is silent on the limitation “random signal adjustments”.
In an analogous art, Spreadbury discloses directing comprising random signal adjustments (Par. 9, “modify the signal randomly, as described . . . to overcome external interference”, note that signals are randomly modified or adjusted in order to overcome interference. Random signal modification reads on random signal adjustment).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the combination by incorporating the teachings of Spreadbury so that unpredictable signal degradation would be corrected, for the purpose of improving signal quality and optimizing performance in unpredictable systems. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 2020/0336178) in view of Spreadbury (US 2008/0284641) and further in view of LEI (US 2022/0312501).
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Ma/Spreadbury discloses the method as recited in claim 9. Ma/Spreadbury further discloses selecting a signal adjustment and transmitting a second uplink signal as part of the second joint transmission by adding the signal adjustment to the second uplink signal (see Ma, Par. 92, “network equipment determines whether the joint UL precoder should be modified and if so, … signals at least modified parameter to each participating UE), note that the network (base station) signals each UE to modify signals according to modified parameters, which reads on transmitting adjustment to be made).
However, the combination of Ma/Spreadbury does not disclose selecting a signal adjustment from a set of adjustment options.
In an analogous art, LEI discloses selecting a signal adjustment from a set of adjustment options (Par. 61, “the base station may transmit a set of transmission configuration options that indicate one or more transmission parameters the UE can change”, note that the UE is given several options for parameter change. Configuration change options is equivalent to adjustment options).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of combination by incorporating the teachings of LEI, for the purpose of providing several options to improve signal quality and thus increasing the possibility of signal improvement. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ma (US 2020/0336178) in view of Spreadbury (US 2008/0284641) and further in view of HU (US 2019/0306821).
Referring to claim 12 the combination of Ma/Spreadbury/ARYAFAR discloses the method as recited in claim 9.
The combination is silent on directing one or more of the UEs to add, as the respective signal adjustment; one or more of: a phase shift; a time delay; a timing advance; or a transmission-beam change.
In an analogous art, HU discloses directing one or more of the UEs to add, as the respective signal adjustment; one or more of: a phase shift; a time delay; a timing advance; or a transmission-beam change (Par. 71, eNB base station sends a timing advance command to the terminal, to request the terminal to adjust the uplink timing advance TA value. Note that the claim language includes an alternative format, thus, based on a broad interpretation only one of the alternatives is met. Specifically, the alternative of timing advance).
It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of combination by incorporating the teachings of HU, for the purpose of providing several options to improve signal quality and thus increasing the possibility of signal improvement. Further, this an example of use of known technique to improve similar devices, methods or products in the same way. MPEP 2143.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 2, 5, 6, 11, 13 and 20 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 2 and 20:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “wherein the directing the multiple UEs in the UECS to add the signal adjustments further comprises: transmitting a command to a coordinating UE of the UECS; and directing the coordinating UE to communicate the command to at least one non-coordinating UE using a respective side-link”, as recited in claims 2 and 20 along with the limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Regarding claim 5:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “wherein the directing the multiple UEs in the UECS to add the signal adjustments further comprises indicating timing information that specifies when to add the signal adjustments”, along with the limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Regarding claims 6:
The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “wherein the directing the multiple UEs in the UECS to add the signal adjustments further comprises indicating timing information that specifies when to add the signal adjustments”, along with the limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Regarding claims 11:The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “selecting the respective signal adjustment for one or more of the UEs from the set of adjustment options and communicating the respective signal adjustment to the UE using a respective side-link; or directing one or more of the UEs in the UECS to select the respective signal adjustment from the set of adjustment options”, along with the limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Regarding claims 13:The prior art fails to disclose or suggest the limitations “receiving, from the base station, timing information that specifies when to add the signal adjustments; and directing one or more of the UEs in the UECS to add the respective signal adjustment to the respective uplink signal based on the timing information”, along with the limitations of the intermediate and/or base claims.
Claims 14-18 are allowed.
The following is the examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 14:
While the prior art discloses base station communicating with UE to command them to adjust their signals, the prior art does not disclose or fairly suggest a non-coordinating UE which is not part of the UECS (UE group set) to receive a command from a coordinating UE, which is participating in the UECS, where the command instructs the non-coordinating UE to adjust its signals for joint transmission to a base station, and where the command includes adding a random signal adjustment for the respective Uplink signal of the non-coordinating UE, and transmit a second uplink signal as part of a second joint transmission to the base station by adding the random signal adjustment to the second uplink signal.
Specifically, the prior art fails to disclose or suggest the claim limitations “a non-coordinating user equipment (UE) in a user equipment-coordination set (UECS)” that performs: “receiving, from a coordinating UE participating in the UECS, a command to add a signal adjustment in a second joint transmission to the base station, the command comprising a direction to add a random signal adjustment to a respective uplink signal of the non-coordinating UE; and transmitting a second uplink signal as part of a second joint transmission to the base station by adding the random signal adjustment to the second uplink signal”, as recited in claim 14, along with the other limitations of the claim.
Claims 15-18 depend upon allowable claim 14, thus, they are allowable for being dependent on allowable claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRED A CASCA whose telephone number is (571)272-7918. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9 to 5. 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, Kathy Wang-Hurst, can be reached at (571) 270-5371. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
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 questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/FRED A CASCA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644