DETAILED ACTION
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 the submission filed 2023-12-29 (herein referred to as the Reply) where claim(s) 1-30 are pending for consideration.
35 USC §112(f) - 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”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited 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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” and are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Such claim(s) and corresponding limitation(s) is/are:
Claim(s) 30
means language: means for
non-structural language: determining one or more parameters...
means language: means for
non-structural language: performing...
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The identified claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim(s) 9, 23,
a quantity of antenna elements in a vertical domain
generic holder: a quantity of antenna elements
functional language: in a vertical domain...
35 USC §102 - Claim Rejections
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being unpatentable over RAHMAN_490 (US20180309490)
Claim(s) 1, 15, 29-30
RAHMAN_490 teaches
a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to: <FIG(s). 3>.
determine one or more parameters for a rank 5-8 Type-I codebook; and Codebook configuration includes matrix parameters for rank 5-8 <FIG(s). 15; para. 0165-0173, 0209-0210, 0250-0255, 0329>.
perform, to a base station, a rank 5-8 channel state information (CSI) reporting based at least in part on the rank 5-8 Type-I codebook that includes the one or more parameters. UE performs CSI reporting according to codebook configuration for rank 5-8 <FIG(s). 15, 17; para. 0165-0173, 0209-0210, 0250-0255, 0329; Table 12,>.
Claim(s) 6, 17
RAHMAN_490 teaches
wherein the one or more processors, to determine the one or more parameters for the rank 5-8 codebook, are configured to receive, from the base station, an indication of the one or more parameters for the rank 5-8 Type-I codebook. UE receives configuration information from a base station for the CSI feedback. <FIG(s). 17; para. 0337-0338>.
Claim(s) 7, 18
RAHMAN_490 teaches
wherein the one or more processors, to determine the one or more parameters for the rank 5-8 codebook, are configured to select the one or more parameters for the rank 5-8 Type-I codebook at the UE. UE performs CSI reporting according to a selected codebook configuration for rank 5-8 <FIG(s). 15, 17; para. 0165-0173, 0209-0210, 0250-0255, 0329; Table 12,>.
35 USC §103 - Claim Rejections
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAHMAN_490 (US20180309490)
Claim(s) 2, 16
In the embodiments discussed herein, RAHMAN_490 does not explicitly teach
wherein the rank 5-8 Type-I codebook is a single-panel rank 5-8 Type-I codebook.
However, in other embodiments RAHMAN_490 teaches
wherein the rank 5-8 Type-I codebook is a single-panel rank 5-8 Type-I codebook. In some embodiments, single pane port selection code book is used for CSI reporting < para. 0272 >
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified embodiments of RAHMAN_490, as discussed herein, with other embodiment(s) disclosed by RAHMAN_490. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide a variation of different configurations for CSI reporting schemes <para. 0002>
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAHMAN_490 (US20180309490) in view of RAHMAN_407 (US20180316407)
Claim(s) 3, 19
RAHMAN_490 does not explicitly teach
wherein the one or more parameters for the rank 5-8 Type-I codebook include beam-specific co-phasing factors,
wherein a co-phasing factor is defined for each beam indicated in the rank 5-8 Type-I codebook.
However in a similar endeavor, RAHMAN_407 teaches
wherein a co-phasing factor is defined for each beam indicated in the rank 5-8 Type-I codebook. Codebook parameters for CSI feedback include co-phase values corresponding to a beam group. In one embodiment, the parameters can be applicable to rank 5-8. <para. 0005-0007, 0113, 0132-0134, 0140-0143, 0173>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by RAHMAN_490 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by RAHMAN_407. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved techniques for correctly estimating the channel in an advance wireless communication system between a user equipment (UE) and an eNode B (eNB) <para. 0003>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAHMAN_490 (US20180309490) in view of HOEK_668 (US20110164668)
Claim(s) 5, 21
As discussed in the base claims, RAHMAN_490 teaches a codebook that is particularly a rank 5-8 Type-I codebook.
RAHMAN_490 does not explicitly teach
wherein the one or more parameters for a codebook include a first integer value and a second integer value to provide an angular distance between different beams, as indicated in the codebook, that satisfies a threshold.
However in a similar endeavor, HOEK_668 teaches
wherein the one or more parameters for a codebook include a first integer value and a second integer value to provide an angular distance between different beams, as indicated in the codebook, that satisfies a threshold. First threshold value and the second threshold value define a range in which a angular beam spread is satisfied. <para. 0150>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by RAHMAN_490 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by HOEK_668. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved techniques in channel estimation reporting <Summary>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAHMAN_490 (US20180309490) in view of YANG_083 (US20180368083)
Claim(s) 10, 24
RAHMAN_490 does not explicitly teach
wherein the rank 5-8 Type-I codebook is a multi-panel rank 5-8 Type-I codebook.
However in a similar endeavor, YANG_083 teaches
wherein the rank 5-8 Type-I codebook is a multi-panel rank 5-8 Type-I codebook. In addition, the multi-panel codebook can be extended to include transmission ranks 5-8 <para. 0017-0018>
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by RAHMAN_490 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by YANG_083. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to reduce the correlation among multiple antennas of a UE, the antennas on the UE may be placed at different panels on the UE. Accordingly, the correlation among the antennas can be weakened. <para. 0017>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAHMAN_490 (US20180309490) in view of YANG_083 (US20180368083) and in further view WERNERSSON_365 (CN110476365)
Claim(s) 12, 26
As discussed for base claims, RAHMAN_490 (US20180309490) in view of YANG_083 (US20180368083) teaches a multi-panel rank 5-8 Type-I codebook.
RAHMAN_022 does not explicitly teach
wherein:
the codebook is associated with a first mode,
wherein a same precoder is applied to different antenna panels based at least in part on the first mode;
or
the codebook is associated with a second mode,
wherein a first precoder is applied to a first antenna panel and a second precoder is applied to a second antenna panel based at least in part on the second mode,
wherein the first precoder and the second precoder apply a same beam for each polarization associated with the first antenna panel and the second antenna panel, and
wherein the first precoder applies first co-phasing factors for cross polarizations associated with the first antenna panel and the second precoder applies second co-phasing factors for cross polarizations associated with the second antenna panel.
However in a similar endeavor, WERNERSSON_365 teaches
a codebook is associated with a first mode, wherein a same precoder is applied to different antenna panels based at least in part on the first mode; When using operation mode based on the codebook, ρ corresponding to the precoder in the codebook can be applied to the number of antenna ports to the PUSCH transmission <para. 0103>
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by RAHMAN_490 and YANG_083 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by WERNERSSON_365. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved codebook techniques that improve UE power consumption <para. 0099>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAHMAN_490 (US20180309490) in view of YANG_083 (US20180368083) and in further view RAHMAN_022 (US20160323022)
Claim(s) 13, 27
As discussed for base claims, RAHMAN_490 (US20180309490) in view of YANG_083 (US20180368083) teaches a multi-panel rank 5-8 Type-I codebook.
RAHMAN_022 does not explicitly teach
wherein antenna configurations supported by the codebook includes a first set of antenna configurations associated with 16 antenna ports and a second set of antenna configurations associated with 32 antenna ports, and wherein the antenna configurations supported by the codebook excludes antenna configurations associated with 8 antenna ports.
However in a similar endeavor, RAHMAN_022 teaches
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by RAHMAN_490 and YANG_083 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by RAHMAN_022. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to meet the high growth in mobile data traffic and support new applications and deployments <para. 0015>.
Claim(s) is/are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RAHMAN_490 (US20180309490) in view of YANG_083 (US20180368083) and in further view RAHMAN_407 (US20180316407)
Claim(s) 14, 28
As discussed for base claims, RAHMAN_490 (US20180309490) in view of YANG_083 (US20180368083) teaches a multi-panel rank 5-8 Type-I codebook.
RAHMAN_490 does not explicitly teach
wherein a rank 5-8 Type-I codebook includes a co-phasing factor for each beam indicated in the rank 5-8 Type-I codebook.
However in a similar endeavor, RAHMAN_407 teaches
wherein a rank 5-8 Type-I codebook includes a co-phasing factor for each beam indicated in the rank 5-8 Type-I codebook. Codebook parameters for CSI feedback include co-phase values corresponding to a beam group. In one embodiment, the parameters can be applicable to rank 5-8. <para. 0005-0007, 0113, 0132-0134, 0140-0143, 0173>.
Before the effective filing date of the claim invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in art to have modified the system/techniques disclosed by RAHMAN_490 and YANG_083 with the embodiment(s) disclosed by RAHMAN_407. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to provide improved techniques for correctly estimating the channel in an advance wireless communication system between a user equipment (UE) and an eNode B (eNB) <para. 0003>.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) is/are indicated as having allowable subject matter and objected to.
Claim(s) 4, 20
The claim(s) 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.
Closest prior art NAM - US20140254517 teaches “a cross-polarization (X-pol) antenna array exhibits a complicated form due to co-phasing factors of a codebook” but does teach a first co-phasing factor for a rank 5-8 and second co-phase factor for different (plurality) of antenna grouped for transmissions at the UE.
Claim(s) 8, 22 and 9, 23
The claim(s) 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.
Closest prior art KRISHNAMURTHY - US20140177745 teaches the use of three different code book index where second is used for wideband (it is unclear if the first index is) but does not teach the third index indicates beam selection from a group of beams.
Claim(s) 11, 25
The claim(s) 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.
Closest art is RAHMAN_490 (US20180309490) in view of YANG_083 (US20180368083) but neither teach wherein the multi-panel rank 5-8 Type-I codebook is based at least in part on a concatenation of two or more single-panel rank 5-8 Type-I precoders with panel co-phasing factors.
Relevant Cited References
US20140254517
US20140177745
MURUGANATHAN - US20190068256 which teaches 16 port for 5-8 antenna configuration <Table 9>.
Examiner’s Notes
English Translations of Non-English Documents
Text herein may rely upon a non-English document. Any citations used herein for said document refers to paragraphs numbers in the (English) translated document, not the original non-English document.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDRE TACDIRAN whose telephone number is 571-272-1717. The examiner can normally be reached on M-TH, 10-5PM EST. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached on 571-270-1215. 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). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ANDRE TACDIRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415