DETAILED ACTION
This communication is in responsive to Application 18/575947 filed on 1/2/2024. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of Claims:
Claims 1-30 are presented for examination.
Information Disclosure Statement
3. The Information Disclosure Statement (IDS) complies with 37 CFR 1.97 provisions. Accordingly, the Examiner has considered the IDS.
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 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. Such claim limitations are:
“Means” for selecting/precoding/transmitting in claim 29. These limitations invoke 112 (f) because the claim limitation uses the term “means,” the term “means” is modified by functional language “for,” and the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
The specification provides support in ¶0087, ¶0092 & Fig. 10.
Because this/these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have these limitations 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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-6 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 5-6 & 19-20 include the limitation “capable of,” which is indefinite because there is no positive statement that the limitations in fact actually do occur. In other words, the claims fail to recite positively, present tense functionalities which warrants the 112 (b) rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7, 11-19, 20-21, 22-23, 25-28 and 29-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. (hereinafter Park) US 2019/0200380 A1 in view of Talaei et al. “Low Complexity MIMO Channel Prediction for Fast Time Variant, IEEE, Vol. 9 (IDS entry 2 under NPL documents filed 01/02/2024 hereinafter NPL).
Regarding Claim 1, Park teaches a method for wireless communication at a first wireless communication device, comprising:
selecting a precoder from a codebook for precoding one or more signals for transmission to a second wireless communication device (¶0298; UE recommends candidate UL precoders from a predefined codebook to BS based on DL RS measurement. In addition, the BS determines the final precoder taken from the codebook),
precoding the one or more signals for transmission to the second wireless communication device using the selected precoder (¶0349; UL-LA process operation by starting Precoded SRS transmission. See examples in ¶0425-¶0437);
and transmitting the precoded one or more signals to the second wireless communication device (¶0350; SRS may be first defined/configured to transmit a specific Precoded SRS. In this case, the base station measures the precoded SRS of the specific port(s) to determine the proposed U1 and/or U2 information. Thereafter, the base station transmits a UL scheduling grant (e.g., in case of U1, may be separately transmitted to the UE via a separate DCI (field) or a separate message container for specific control information delivery (by L1 and/or L2 signaling) including the determined U1 and/or U2 information).
Park teaches a quantity of transmit antennas in MIMO system. See ¶0090-¶0101. Park also teaches bandwidth to concentrate one or more signals. For example, Frequency selective and frequency non-selective precoding in digital domain may be considered for a widesystem bandwidth. The support for the frequency selective precoding is determined according to decision on NR waveform(s). The value of the wide system bandwidth will be discussed later, see ¶0296. However, Park does not expressly teach “wherein the precoder is based at least in part on one or more Slepian sequences associated with a quantity of transmit antennas at the first wireless communication device and a bandwidth within which to concentrate the one or more signals.”
NPL teaches wherein the precoder is based at least in part on one or more Slepian sequences (P. 3, III.A DPS [aka. Slepian sequences] Sequence; NPL teaches using DPS/Slepian for signals) associated with a quantity of transmit antennas at the first wireless communication device and a bandwidth within which to concentrate the one or more signals (P. 5-8; sections IV.A and IV.C and Fig. 5; NPL teaches using DPS sequence [Slepian sequence] for considering transmitted frames over antenna and in view of bandwidth. Note that it is known in the art that Slepian sequences provide the maximum possible energy concentration within a time index set (n ϵ {0, 1, …,N-1}) for a given frequency bandwidth (ϵ in [-W,W])).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of NPL e.g., using Discrete Prolate Spheroidal (DPS) sequences, also known as Slepian sequences, in Digital Signal Processing (DSP) into the system of Park for optimal time-frequency analysis, providing maximum energy concentration in both time and frequency domains, which is crucial for tasks like channel estimation, spectral analysis (multitaper method), and data compression where you need to balance bandwidth and data length with minimal distortion, outperforming standard Fourier methods in specific scenarios like time-varying channels (Common knowledge).
Regarding Claim 2, Park in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 1, Park further teaches wherein selecting the precoder from the codebook is based at least in part on a first antenna configuration at the first wireless communication device and a second antenna configuration at the second wireless communication device (¶0301; obvious because frequency selective and frequency non-selective precoding in digital domain may be considered for the wide system bandwidth. The support for the frequency selective precoding is determined according to decision on NR waveform(s). The value of the wide system bandwidth will be discussed later. Also see NPL in P. 5-8 that illustrate the calculations for different antenna and bandwidth).
Regarding Claim 3, Park in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 1, Park further teaches further comprising determining the codebook from which to select the precoder for precoding the one or more signals based at least in part on the first wireless communication device operating in a line of sight multiple-input multiple-output mode (¶0094-¶0125; MIMO), wherein the codebook comprises a plurality of precoders constructed (¶0425-¶0437; different precoders) Park does not expressly teach based at least in part on Slepian sequences. NPL teaches based at least in part on Slepian sequences (P. 5-8; sections IV.A and IV.C and Fig. 5; NPL teaches using DPS sequence [Slepian sequence] for considering transmitted frames over antenna and in view of bandwidth. Note that it is known in the art that Slepian sequences provide the maximum possible energy concentration within a time index set (n ϵ {0, 1, …,N-1}) for a given frequency bandwidth (ϵ in [-W,W])).
Regarding Claim 4, Park in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 3, Park further teaches wherein the first wireless communication device comprises a user equipment (UE), and the method further comprises receiving, from a base station, a control message indicating the codebook from which the UE is to select the precoder for precoding the one or more signals (¶0298; UE-aided and BS-centric mechanism: The UE recommends candidate UL precoders from a predefined codebook to BS based on DL RS measurement. In addition, the BS determines the final precoder taken from the codebook) [this implies a control message to UE to select the precoder that BS is selecting from the codebook] based at least in part on the first wireless communication device operating in the line of sight multiple-input multiple-output mode, wherein the determining is based at least in part on receiving the control message (¶0434; even if the base station is also capable of configuring/instructing a plurality of codebooks to the UE (that is, even if all of the codebooks are implemented), the base station may configure/indicate the specific codebook to commonly applied to be cell-specific or UE group-specific by synthetically considering a codebook implementation/support status and/or codebook preference status of the plurality of UEs accessing the corresponding cell (for example, for the purpose of facilitating UL MU-MIMO transmission or the like)).
Regarding Claim 5, Park in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 3, Park further teaches wherein the first wireless communication device comprises a user equipment (UE), and the method further comprises transmitting, to a base station, an indication that the UE is capable of operating in the line of sight multiple-input multiple-output mode (¶0434-¶0440; if supported, all subband UL-MIMO precoder(s) is(are) preferably instantaneously provided to the UE within the UL scheduling grant and in this case, a wideband component may be included only once to reduce control channel overhead).
Regarding Claim 6, Park in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 1, Park further teaches wherein the first wireless communication device comprises a user equipment (UE), and the method further comprises transmitting, to a base station, an indication that the UE is capable of utilizing one or more precoders (¶0425-¶0437; different precoders) Park does not expressly teach constructed based at least in part on Slepian sequences. NPL teaches constructed based at least in part on Slepian sequences (P. 5-8; sections IV.A and IV.C and Fig. 5; NPL teaches using DPS sequence [Slepian sequence] for considering transmitted frames over antenna and in view of bandwidth. Note that it is known in the art that Slepian sequences provide the maximum possible energy concentration within a time index set (n ϵ {0, 1, …,N-1}) for a given frequency bandwidth (ϵ in [-W,W])).
Regarding Claim 7, Park in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 1, NPL further teaches wherein selecting the precoder from the codebook comprises: selecting the one or more Slepian sequences from the codebook to use to construct the precoder, the method further comprising: constructing the precoder based at least in part on the one or more Slepian sequences (P. 5-8; sections IV.A and IV.C and Fig. 5; NPL teaches constructing precoder based on matrix F[m] over each transmitted frame where the precoder matrix is then fed back to the transmitter directly).
Regarding Claim 11, Park in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 1, Park further teaches wherein the precoder is constructed based at least in part on performing a singular value decomposition (¶0101; if a transmission end can be aware of channel information, a Singular Value Decomposition (SVD) method may be used) Park does not teach to generate the one or more Slepian sequences. NPL teaches “to generate the one or more Slepian sequences” (P. 5-8; sections IV.A and IV.C and Fig. 5; NPL teaches constructing precoder based on matrix F[m] over each transmitted frame where the precoder matrix is then fed back to the transmitter directly. The whole transmission depends on one value).
Regarding Claim 12, Park in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 1, NPL further teaches wherein: each of the one or more Slepian sequences comprise an eigenvector of a matrix comprising values calculated based at least in part on the bandwidth within which to concentrate the one or more signals, and one or more dimensions of the matrix are based at least in part on the quantity of transmit antennas at the first wireless communication device (P. 5-8; sections IV.A and IV.C and Fig. 5; obvious because NPL uses eigne vector of a matrix to do the calcuations. The number of antennas on both sides of the MIMO channel also is taken into account for the precorder. The antenna structures and the way of determining the precorder for each structure are standard options known to the skilled person in the art).
Regarding Claim 13, Park in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 1, Park further teaches wherein the bandwidth within which to concentrate the one or more signals is below a threshold bandwidth (“below a threshold” how this threshold employed in the claim. Under BRI any bandwidth is “below threshold bandwidth.” Here, ¶0296; Frequency selective and frequency non-selective precoding in digital domain may be considered for a widesystem bandwidth. The support for the frequency selective precoding is determined according to decision on NR waveform(s). The value of the wide system bandwidth. ¶0425; frequency-selective UL-MIMO scheduling, applying the dual codebook structure as in DL similarly to the UL case (e.g., 4-Tx case) needs to be investigated. Considering the agreed CP-OFDM structure for UL, a final UL precoder W per subband may be decomposed into a wideband PMI component W_1 and the corresponding subband PMI component W_2. Then, in the UL scheduling DCI, the W_1 information is enough to be included once, and multiple W_2s are required to be included depending on the scheduled RB region given by a resource allocation field in the same DCI. How to define the codebook for W_1 and W_2 is for further study, but the baseline should be reusing Rel-12 DL 4-Tx codebook. The existing LTE 2-Tx DL codebook may be reused as it is for the 2-Tx UL case and the whole per-subband PMIs need to be provided in the UL scheduling grant).
Regarding Claim 14, Park in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 1, Park further teaches wherein a length of each of the one or more Slepian sequences is equal to the quantity of transmit antennas at the first wireless communication device (¶0225; obvious because in a millimeter wave (mmW), a wavelength is shortened, so that a plurality of antenna elements may be installed in the same area. That is, a total of 64 (8×8) antenna elements may be installed in a 2-dimension array at a 0.5 lambda (that is, wavelength) interval on a panel of 4×4 (4 by 4) cm with a wavelength of 1 cm in a 30 GHz band. Therefore, in the mmW, it is possible to increase a beamforming (BF) gain to increase coverage or increase throughput by using multiple antenna elements. Also, ¶509; division method may adopt, for example, TDM, interleaved frequency division multiple access (IFDMA), and OFDM symbol-level division to an OFDM symbol length (i.e., a subcarrier spacing greater than the subcarrier spacing) which is equal to or shorter than a reference OFDM symbol length and further, other methods are not excluded).
Regarding Claim 22, Park in view of NPL teaches the apparatus of claim 15, Park further teaches wherein the instructions to select the precoder are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to select a Slepian precoder from the codebook based at least in part on a quantity of receive antennas at the second wireless communication device being greater than or equal to the quantity of transmit antennas at the first wireless communication device (this limitation is obvious because that number of antennas on both sides of the MIMO channel is taken into account for the precorder. The antenna structures and the way of determining the precorder for each structure are standard options known to the skilled person in the art. Also, the limitation is obvious from ¶0251-¶0252 because among a scheme of serving one area using all the antenna ports and a scheme of serving many areas at the same time by dividing the antenna ports, a preferred scheme is changed according to the rank and the modulation and coding scheme (MCS) servicing to the UE for maximizing the cell throughput. Also, the preferred method is changed according to the amount of data to be transmitted to each UE. The BS calculates a cell throughput or scheduling metric which may be obtained when one area is served using all the antenna ports, and calculates the cell throughput or scheduling metric which may be obtained when two areas are served by dividing the antenna ports. The BS compares the cell throughput or the scheduling metric which may be obtained by each scheme to select the final transmission scheme. As a result, the number of antenna ports participating in PDSCH transmission is changed by SF-by-SF. In order for the BS to calculate the transmission MCS of the PDSCH according to the number of antenna ports and reflect the calculated transmission MCS to a scheduling algorithm, the CSI feedback from the appropriate UE is required. Also see NPL p. 5-8 and Fig. 5 which one with ordinary skill reaches this limitation after reading sections IV.A and IV.C because it is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take into consideration the number of antennas on both sides of the MIMO channel for the precorder. The antenna structures and the way of determining the precorder for each structure are standard options known to the skilled person in the art).
Regarding Claim 23, Park in view of NPL teaches the apparatus of claim 15, Park further teaches wherein the instructions to select the precoder are executable by the processor to cause the apparatus to select a block-Slepian precoder from the codebook based at least in part on a quantity of receive antennas at the second wireless communication device being fewer than the quantity of transmit antennas at the first wireless communication device (this limitation is obvious because that number of antennas on both sides of the MIMO channel is taken into account for the precorder. The antenna structures and the way of determining the precorder for each structure are standard options known to the skilled person in the art. Also, the limitation is obvious from ¶0251-¶0252 because among a scheme of serving one area using all the antenna ports and a scheme of serving many areas at the same time by dividing the antenna ports, a preferred scheme is changed according to the rank and the modulation and coding scheme (MCS) servicing to the UE for maximizing the cell throughput. Also, the preferred method is changed according to the amount of data to be transmitted to each UE. The BS calculates a cell throughput or scheduling metric which may be obtained when one area is served using all the antenna ports, and calculates the cell throughput or scheduling metric which may be obtained when two areas are served by dividing the antenna ports. The BS compares the cell throughput or the scheduling metric which may be obtained by each scheme to select the final transmission scheme. As a result, the number of antenna ports participating in PDSCH transmission is changed by SF-by-SF. In order for the BS to calculate the transmission MCS of the PDSCH according to the number of antenna ports and reflect the calculated transmission MCS to a scheduling algorithm, the CSI feedback from the appropriate UE is required. Also see NPL p. 5-8 and Fig. 5 which one with ordinary skill reaches this limitation after reading sections IV.A and IV.C because it is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take into consideration the number of antennas on both sides of the MIMO channel for the precorder. The antenna structures and the way of determining the precorder for each structure are standard options known to the skilled person in the art).
.
Claims 15, 16-19, 20-21, 25-28 and 29-30 are substantially similar to the above claims thus, the same rationale applies.
Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of NPL and further in view of Villier GB 2362295 (IDS entry 1 filed 01/02/2024).
Regarding Claim 8, Park in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 1, Park further teaches selecting … based at least in part on a quantity of receive antennas at the second wireless communication device being greater than or equal to the quantity of transmit antennas at the first wireless communication device (this limitation is obvious because that number of antennas on both sides of the MIMO channel is taken into account for the precorder. The antenna structures and the way of determining the precorder for each structure are standard options known to the skilled person in the art. Also, the limitation is obvious from ¶0251-¶0252 because among a scheme of serving one area using all the antenna ports and a scheme of serving many areas at the same time by dividing the antenna ports, a preferred scheme is changed according to the rank and the modulation and coding scheme (MCS) servicing to the UE for maximizing the cell throughput. Also, the preferred method is changed according to the amount of data to be transmitted to each UE. The BS calculates a cell throughput or scheduling metric which may be obtained when one area is served using all the antenna ports, and calculates the cell throughput or scheduling metric which may be obtained when two areas are served by dividing the antenna ports. The BS compares the cell throughput or the scheduling metric which may be obtained by each scheme to select the final transmission scheme. As a result, the number of antenna ports participating in PDSCH transmission is changed by SF-by-SF. In order for the BS to calculate the transmission MCS of the PDSCH according to the number of antenna ports and reflect the calculated transmission MCS to a scheduling algorithm, the CSI feedback from the appropriate UE is required. Also see NPL p. 5-8 and Fig. 5 which one with ordinary skill reaches this limitation after reading sections IV.A and IV.C because it is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take into consideration the number of antennas on both sides of the MIMO channel for the precorder. The antenna structures and the way of determining the precorder for each structure are standard options known to the skilled person in the art).
Park in view of NPL does not expressly teach wherein the first wireless communication device comprises a uniform linear antenna array, and wherein selecting the precoder comprises selecting a Slepian precoder from the codebook.
Villier is analogous art because it is directed to DSP linear antenna array. See p. 7, line 11-p. 9, line 19 and Fig. 5.
Villier teaches wherein the first wireless communication device comprises a uniform linear antenna array (P. 8, lines 13-25; Application of this sequence provides, for a uniform linear array containing N elements, with a sensor spacing of a half a wavelength, the following set of 15 complex weights: {h,, = V,(") exp(i2,nnfo), n = 0.... N-I where fo = sinO, /2 This solution is only valid for a uniform linear array of N sensors, but extensions to arbitrary array geometry are possible. It is to be noted that this solution makes use of only the first discrete prolate spheroidal sequence. A more efficient spatial filter may be achieved by using the first K=[2WN1-2 sequences, where the 25 bracketed term denotes the integer part of a real number, 2WN), and wherein selecting the precoder comprises selecting a Slepian precoder from the codebook (See p. 7, line 11-p. 9, line 19 and Fig. 5),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Villier into the system of Park in view of NPL in order to provide adaptive array (for the purpose of transmitting a signal to a mobile station or receiving one therefrom) in the direction of the main (strongest) components of the multipath signal received from the mobile station with which the BTS is to communicate (p. 3, lines 11-20).
Regarding Claim 9, Park in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 1, Parker further teaches based at least in part on a quantity of receive antennas at the second wireless communication device being fewer than the quantity of transmit antennas at the first wireless communication device (this limitation is obvious because that number of antennas on both sides of the MIMO channel is taken into account for the precorder. The antenna structures and the way of determining the precorder for each structure are standard options known to the skilled person in the art. Also, the limitation is obvious from ¶0251-¶0252 because among a scheme of serving one area using all the antenna ports and a scheme of serving many areas at the same time by dividing the antenna ports, a preferred scheme is changed according to the rank and the modulation and coding scheme (MCS) servicing to the UE for maximizing the cell throughput. Also, the preferred method is changed according to the amount of data to be transmitted to each UE. The BS calculates a cell throughput or scheduling metric which may be obtained when one area is served using all the antenna ports, and calculates the cell throughput or scheduling metric which may be obtained when two areas are served by dividing the antenna ports. The BS compares the cell throughput or the scheduling metric which may be obtained by each scheme to select the final transmission scheme. As a result, the number of antenna ports participating in PDSCH transmission is changed by SF-by-SF. In order for the BS to calculate the transmission MCS of the PDSCH according to the number of antenna ports and reflect the calculated transmission MCS to a scheduling algorithm, the CSI feedback from the appropriate UE is required. Also see NPL p. 5-8 and Fig. 5 which one with ordinary skill reaches this limitation after reading sections IV.A and IV.C because it is well known in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to take into consideration the number of antennas on both sides of the MIMO channel for the precorder. The antenna structures and the way of determining the precorder for each structure are standard options known to the skilled person in the art).
Parker in view of NPL do not expressly teach wherein the first wireless communication device comprises a uniform linear antenna array, and wherein selecting the precoder comprises selecting a block-Slepian precoder from the codebook.
Villier is analogous art because it is directed to DSP linear antenna array. See p. 7, line 11-p. 9, line 19 and Fig. 5.
Villier teaches wherein the first wireless communication device comprises a uniform linear antenna array (P. 8, lines 13-25; Application of this sequence provides, for a uniform linear array containing N elements, with a sensor spacing of a half a wavelength, the following set of 15 complex weights: {h,, = V,(") exp(i2,nnfo), n = 0.... N-I where fo = sinO, /2 This solution is only valid for a uniform linear array of N sensors, but extensions to arbitrary array geometry are possible. It is to be noted that this solution makes use of only the first discrete prolate spheroidal sequence. A more efficient spatial filter may be achieved by using the first K=[2WN1-2 sequences, where the 25 bracketed term denotes the integer part of a real number, 2WN), and wherein selecting the precoder comprises selecting a block-Slepian precoder from the codebook (See p. 7, line 11-p. 9, line 19 and Fig. 5),
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Villier into the system of Park in view of NPL in order to provide adaptive array (for the purpose of transmitting a signal to a mobile station or receiving one therefrom) in the direction of the main (strongest) components of the multipath signal received from the mobile station with which the BTS is to communicate (p. 3, lines 11-20).
Claims 10 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of NPL and further in view of Ibrahim et al. (hereinafter Ibrahim) US 2019/0341978 A1.
Regarding Claim 10, Park in view of NPL teaches the method of claim 1, but does not expressly teach wherein the first wireless communication device comprises a uniform rectangular antenna array, and wherein selecting the precoder comprises: selecting a first precoder associated with a first axis of the uniform rectangular antenna array and a second precoder associated with a second axis of the uniform rectangular antenna array; and determining the precoder for precoding the one or more signals based at least in part on a Kronecker product of the first precoder and the second precoder.
However, this limitation is obvious in the art because the number of antennas on both sides of the MIMO channel is taken into account for the precorder. The antenna structures and the way of determining the precorder for each structure are standard options known to the skilled person in the art.
Ibrahim teaches wherein the first wireless communication device comprises a uniform rectangular antenna array (¶0067; the BS includes a uniform rectangular array (URA) with M vertical, and N horizontal TXRUs, with antenna spacing of (d.sub.V, d.sub.H). The total number of TXRUs is denoted as N.sub.TXRU=MN. The UL and DL wavelengths are denoted as: λ.sub.UL and λ.sub.DL; and the corresponding center frequencies are: f.sub.UL and f.sub.DL), and wherein selecting the precoder comprises: selecting a first precoder associated with a first axis of the uniform rectangular antenna array and a second precoder associated with a second axis of the uniform rectangular antenna array (¶0059 & Fig. 4; obvious because M corresponds to a total number or quantity of antenna elements on a substantially vertical axis. In some embodiments, M corresponds to a ratio of a total number or quantity of antenna elements to S, on a substantially vertical axis, wherein M and S are chosen to be a positive integer); and determining the precoder for precoding the one or more signals based at least in part on a Kronecker product of the first precoder and the second precoder (¶0065; When the UE is configured with (N.sub.1, N.sub.2), the UE calculates CQI with a composite precoder constructed with two-component codebooks, N.sub.1-Tx codebook (codebook 1) and N.sub.2-Tx codebook (codebook 2). When W.sub.1 and W.sub.2 are respectively are precoders of codebook 1 and codebook 2, the composite precoder (of size P×(rank)) is the (columnwise) Kronecker product of W=W.sub.1.Math.W.sub.2. If PMI reporting is configured, the UE will report at least two component PMI corresponding to selected pair of W.sub.1 and W.sub.2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed limitation to incorporate the teachings of Ibrahim into the system of Park in view of NPL in order to construct a precoding channel matrix for the UE based on the PMI and the at least one DL beam weight vector (abstract).
Claim 24 is substantially similar to claim 10, thus the same rationale applies.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHRAN ABU ROUMI whose telephone number is (469)295-9170. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6AM-5PM.
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, Emmanuel Moise can be reached at 571-272-3865. 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.
MAHRAN ABU ROUMI
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2455
/MAHRAN Y ABU ROUMI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2455