DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Disposition
This action is responsive to the amendment and remarks filed May 19, 2026. Claims 1 and 11 are currently amended. Claims 2-10 and 12-20 were previously presented. Claims 1-20 are pending and are rejected.
The amendment added the requirement that the selected precoder is included in a plurality of precoders, each associated with a different precoder rank. The amendment also replaced the former two-precoder wording in independent claims 1 and 11. The new grounds below are necessitated by that amendment. Accordingly, this action is made FINAL. MPEP 706.07(a).
Claim Rejections 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): 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.
Claims 6-10 and 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite. Amended claims 1 and 11 now introduce a plurality of precoders, but claims 6 and 16 recite selecting one of 'the two precoders.' The claims do not identify which two members of the recited plurality are meant. Because different pairs can have different ranks, columns, and performance values, the scope of the selection and every dependent limitation tied to that pair is not reasonably certain.
Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20 are additionally indefinite. Each identifies A as 'a precoder column' while applying matrix operations log(I+A), determinant, and trace to A. A column vector is not square; adding an identity matrix to a column and taking its determinant or trace are dimensionally undefined absent an unstated conversion of A to a square Gram or covariance matrix. The specification at paragraphs 92-94 uses F_v^H F_v as the matrix argument, which does not resolve which unstated matrix the claims intend A to denote.
Claim Rejections 35 USC 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103: 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.
Claims 1-5 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Love et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0142147 A1, in view of Jöngren et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0284484 A1, and further in view of Ko et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0010745 A1.
Claim 1. Love teaches a method performed by a network node, namely MIMO base station or eNB 102, in communication with a wireless device, namely UE 114 (Fig. 1; paragraphs 16-19 and 30-36). Love teaches receiving a precoder rank indication because each UE reports a recommended RI and PMI to the eNB, and the eNB receives and decodes that feedback for downlink scheduling (paragraphs 18-19 and 32-36; claim 16). Love further teaches, when the indicated rank r is greater than 1, a plurality of candidate precoders associated with different ranks. The UE may report rank-r PMI/CQI together with rank-1 and/or rank-2 PMI/CQI; when r is neither 1 nor 2, the report contains rank-r, rank-1, and rank-2 PMI/CQI pairs (paragraphs 24-29; Tables 1-4). The eNB dynamically selects the applicable transmission mode and corresponding rank-specific PMI information from that feedback for scheduling, with switching as often as every subframe (paragraphs 17-21 and 34-36).
Love does not expressly state that the network node makes that selection cyclically or randomly. Jöngren teaches open-loop precoder cycling and expressly organizes each codebook index as a set containing one precoder for each transmission rank, including ranks 1, 2, 3, and 4 (paragraphs 42-46; Table 1; Figs. 5 and 10). Jöngren selects a cycling subset and uses the selected precoders for open-loop precoder cycling, explaining that cycling provides desired distance properties and transmit diversity while permitting reuse of an LTE closed-loop codebook (paragraphs 42-50).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to apply Jöngren's known cyclic selection technique to Love's already available, rank-indexed precoder candidates when Love's indicated rank is greater than 1. The modification would have predictably implemented Love's dynamic selection with a deterministic low-complexity schedule, reused the same LTE codebook structure, and distributed transmissions over precoders having different spatial dimensions, while retaining Love's multi-rank feedback and scheduling. This is the use of a known selection technique to improve a similar MIMO scheduling device in the same way and is supported by Jöngren's express teachings concerning cycling, distance, diversity, and codebook reuse. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). Thus the combination teaches selecting, either cyclically or randomly, a precoder included in a plurality of precoders when the indicated precoder rank is greater than 1, each precoder of the plurality being associated with a different precoder rank.
Claim 2. Love teaches dynamic rank-mode selection as frequently as every subframe (paragraph 17). Ko teaches the LTE time structure in which each subframe has two slots and expressly identifies slot and subframe timing (paragraphs 46-50). Selecting once per slot would have been an obvious choice of one of the expressly standardized LTE scheduling granularities, yielding the predictable result that one selection governs the symbols in that slot and avoiding intra-slot control changes.
Claim 3. Love teaches configuration of rank-r together with rank-1 PMI/CQI and explains that, when r is 2, the report contains the rank-2 SU-MIMO pair and the rank-1 MU-MIMO pair (paragraph 24; Table 1). Jöngren's common codebook index likewise includes rank-1 and rank-2 precoders (paragraphs 44-46; Table 1). The cyclic selection discussed for claim 1 therefore selects one of a rank-1 precoder and a rank-2 precoder when RI is 2.
Claim 4. Love teaches reporting rank-r plus rank-2 PMI/CQI when r is not 2, including r=3 (paragraph 25; Table 1), and Jöngren's common codebook index includes rank-2 and rank-3 precoders (paragraphs 44-46; Table 1). Ko independently teaches separate rank-2 and rank-3 codebooks for four-transmit-antenna MIMO (paragraphs 133-134; Tables 8-9). It would have been obvious to limit the cycling set to the rank-2 and rank-3 candidates for an indicated rank above 2 to preserve at least two layers while reducing the search and feedback burden.
Claim 5. Jöngren teaches nested precoders at a common codebook index: a first-rank precoder is included in a second-rank precoder, the first and second are included in a third-rank precoder, and the first through third are included in a fourth-rank precoder (paragraph 44; Table 1). Love teaches rank-r and lower restricted-rank PMI/CQI candidates (paragraphs 24-29). Selecting one rank and its next-lowest rank is the predictable adjacent-rank implementation of those teachings, minimizing the change in the number of spatial streams while preserving an alternate candidate.
Claim 11. Love teaches MIMO base station 102 with antennas and transceiver/decoder/control logic configured to communicate with UE 114, receive and decode UE multi-rank RI/PMI/CQI feedback, and select the associated scheduling mode (Fig. 1; paragraphs 18-19 and 30-36). The antennas and receive module are a radio interface; the decoder and SU/MU control logic are processing circuitry. For the reasons stated for claim 1, Jöngren renders obvious configuring that processing circuitry to select cyclically from Love's plurality of rank-associated precoders when RI is greater than 1 (Jöngren paragraphs 42-50; Figs. 5 and 10; Table 1).
Claims 12-15. Claims 12-15 recite the apparatus counterparts of claims 2-5. Love's base-station control logic, when programmed to perform the scheduling operations described above, in combination with Jöngren and Ko, renders those limitations obvious for the same reasons given for claims 2-5. The recitation of circuitry configured to perform an otherwise obvious method does not distinguish the claims where Love expressly implements the relevant receive, decode, selection, and scheduling functions in base-station logic.
Claims 6, 7, 10, 16, 17, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Love in view of Jöngren and Ko as applied above, and further in view of Mundarath et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0165875 A1.
Claims 6 and 16. The Love-Jöngren-Ko combination teaches the claimed rank-associated candidate precoders but does not expressly select between two candidates by comparing values of a performance function produced by corresponding precoder columns. Mundarath teaches evaluating codebook entries and corresponding beamforming vectors, calculating a performance metric for each candidate, and selecting the codeword/vector pair that produces the maximum metric (paragraphs 65-73; Fig. 2; equations 3-4). It would have been obvious to use Mundarath's candidate-by-candidate metric comparison to choose between two members of the Love-Jöngren candidate set because it predictably selects the candidate expected to provide better link performance rather than selecting blindly.
Claims 7 and 17. Mundarath's metric uses Hermitian-transpose products and squared norms of the candidate codeword or beamforming column, including u_i^H H v_i and norm terms evaluated for each candidate (paragraphs 67-73; equation 3). A squared norm is the inner product of a column with itself, u^H u. Thus the performance function is a function of a transpose, in the complex-valued implementation a conjugate transpose, of a precoder-related column times that column. Using that conventional Gram quantity as the compared function would have been a routine mathematical implementation of Mundarath's disclosed norm-based metric.
Claims 10 and 20. As construed consistently with the specification to apply the determinant-over-trace metric to a square Gram matrix formed from the candidate precoder columns, Jöngren teaches evaluating candidate precoders using matrix distance properties, including chordal and Fubini-Study measures, and selecting a cycling codebook with superior properties (paragraphs 42-50). Mundarath teaches selecting the candidate producing the better metric value (paragraphs 67-73). Normalizing a determinant-based orthogonality measure by trace, which represents total squared column energy, would have been an obvious scale-normalization of the disclosed Gram-matrix comparison so candidates of different rank or power can be compared on a common basis. This rejection is made in the alternative to the section 112(b) rejection because the literal claim wording identifies A as a column and is dimensionally unclear.
Claims 8, 9, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as unpatentable over Love in view of Jöngren, Ko, and Mundarath as applied above, and further in view of Khan et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/0165104 A1, and Rydberg et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2011/0002414 A1.
Claims 8 and 18. Khan teaches evaluating communication performance using Shannon's capacity formula, C=log2(1+SINR), expressly relating the logarithmic formula to channel capacity (paragraph 38; equation 1). It would have been obvious to use Shannon capacity as Mundarath's performance metric because Mundarath expressly permits CQI or SINR metrics and seeks the candidate that maximizes predicted communication performance; the substitution would yield the predictable result of choosing the candidate with the greater information-carrying capacity.
Claims 9 and 19. Rydberg teaches the MIMO channel-capacity expression C(R)=log det(I+R_n^-1 H R H^H), identifies I as the identity matrix, and derives an optimum precoder from that capacity expression (paragraphs 35-47; equations 1 and 9-10). Under the only dimensionally coherent construction, A denotes the square effective matrix formed from the candidate precoder column and channel, so the expression is the claimed determinant/logarithmic form |log(I+A)|. It would have been obvious to use Rydberg's standard log-determinant capacity expression in the combined system to compare candidate columns because it is a known MIMO implementation of the Shannon-capacity metric taught by Khan. This rejection is made in the alternative to the section 112(b) rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant argues that Ko and the previously cited secondary references do not teach or suggest 'each precoder of the plurality of precoders being associated with a different precoder rank.' The argument is persuasive as to anticipation by Ko alone because Ko describes random or changing selection within a stated rank and does not, by itself, disclose the amended cross-rank plurality at the network node. The prior anticipation rejection is therefore withdrawn.
The argument does not overcome the new obviousness rejection. Love expressly receives at the eNB a preferred RI together with multiple PMI/CQI pairs of different ranks, including rank-r plus rank-1 and rank-2 when r is greater than 2 (paragraphs 18-19 and 24-29). Jöngren expressly organizes one codebook index with a precoder for each of ranks 1-4 and teaches open-loop precoder cycling (paragraphs 42-50; Table 1). The rejection therefore does not rely on Ko or Mundarath to supply the newly added different-rank association. Ko is used for LTE timing and additional rank-specific codebook details, while Jöngren supplies the cyclic-selection technique. The references are combined for their express, complementary teachings, with the articulated predictable benefits stated above.
Applicant's separate arguments concerning Khan, Mundarath, and the former Zhang ground do not address the Love-Jöngren teaching that supplies the amended independent-claim limitation. The dependent-claim references are applied only after the independent limitations have been met by the Love-Jöngren-Ko combination. The former Zhang ground is not maintained; claims 9 and 19 are addressed above using Rydberg and under section 112(b).
Claims 1-20 are rejected. The prior section 102 rejection based on Ko alone is withdrawn and replaced with the section 103 rejections above. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications should be directed to Examiner Angel Brockman in Art Unit 2412.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANGEL T BROCKMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5664. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00AM-4:30 PM
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, Charles Jiang can be reached at 571-270-7191. 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.
/ANGEL T BROCKMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2412
Prosecution Insights