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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants’ arguments filed on 15 April 2026 have been fully considered but they are not deemed to be persuasive.
By the amendment filed 15 April 2026, claims 1 and 9-13 have been amended.
Claims 1-30 are now pending.
Claims 1-30 are rejected.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Rahman merely discloses reporting a coherence capability and does not disclose selecting from among non-coherent, partially coherent, and full-coherent codebooks as recited in amended claim 1. Applicant further contends that Rahman’s codebooks do not apply to the claimed antenna configuration.
The Examiner disagrees. Rahman does not merely disclose reporting coherence information. Rahman expressly discloses multiple coherence-specific codebooks, including a full-coherence codebook CB0, a partial-coherence codebook CB1, and a non-coherence codebook CB2 (Rahman ¶¶[0255]–[0257]). Rahman further discloses a codebook subset restriction for selecting groups of precoding matrices within the codebook for TPMI indication (Rahman ¶[0259]). Thus, Rahman discloses the underlying codebooks and selection among codebook content, rather than merely reporting a coherence capability.
Applicant’s argument concerning antenna count is also not persuasive. Amended claim 1 recites codebooks for 6 or 8 antennas. Rahman expressly discloses codebooks for an 8-antenna configuration. Because the limitation is written in the alternative, Rahman’s disclosure of the 8-antenna configuration satisfies the claimed limitation. The claim does not require the codebooks to be applicable to every possible number of antennas.
Moreover, assuming arguendo that Rahman does not expressly disclose the particular antenna-specific codebook structures corresponding to each of the recited coherence types, Yang discloses predefined codebook structures and precoding matrices for multiple antenna configurations, including 6-antenna and 8-antenna MIMO codebooks (Yang Figs. 3A–3D; ¶¶[0049]–[0060]). As explained in the rejection, it would have been obvious to employ Yang’s antenna-specific codebook structures within Rahman’s coherence-based codebook-selection framework because both references concern selection of precoding matrices for MIMO communication according to antenna configuration and channel coherence.
Accordingly, the amendment and Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Rahman in view of Yang, and the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahman (US 2018/0183503 A1) in view of Yang (US 2019/0081667 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rahman discloses "a wireless communication device for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory."
Rahman describes that a UE includes memory 230 and controller/processor 225 (Rahman ¶[0044]: "The memory 230 is coupled to the controller/processor 225... may include RAM... Flash memory..."), and further discloses transceiver/TX/RX baseband processing controlled by processor 225 (¶¶[0039]-[0042]). Thus, Rahman discloses a wireless communication device including a memory and one or more processors coupled to the memory.
Rahman further discloses that the one or more processors are configured to "select a codebook for a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) communication, comprising at least an uplink communication or a downlink communication, from among one or more codebooks."
Specifically, Rahman expressly discloses multiple coherence-specific codebooks, including a full-coherence codebook (CB0), a partial-coherence codebook (CB1), and a non-coherence codebook (CB2) (¶¶[0255]-[0257]). Rahman further discloses a codebook subset restriction (CBSR) for selecting groups of precoding matrices within the codebook for TPMI indication (¶[0259]). Rahman therefore teaches selecting from among multiple codebooks for MIMO communication.
Rahman further discloses that the codebooks "include one or more of non-coherent codebooks for 6 or 8 antennas of the wireless communication device, partially-coherent codebooks for multiple paired antennas of the 6 or 8 antennas of the wireless communication device, or full-coherent codebooks for the 6 or 8 antennas."
Rahman expressly discloses the three coherence-specific codebooks, namely CB0 (full-coherence), CB1 (partial-coherence), and CB2 (non-coherence) (¶¶[0255]-[0257]), and further discloses embodiments employing 8-antenna codebooks. Since the claim recites "6 or 8 antennas," Rahman's disclosure of 8-antenna codebooks satisfies the alternatively recited antenna limitation.
Rahman further discloses that the processors are configured to "transmit the uplink communication or receive the downlink communication using the 6 or 8 antennas and using the codebook."
Rahman discloses selecting a precoding matrix from the selected codebook and using the selected precoding matrix for uplink MIMO transmission based on the reported coherence capability (¶¶[0255]-[0259], ¶¶[0255]-[0259]).
Assuming arguendo that Rahman does not expressly disclose the particular codebook structures corresponding to the recited non-coherent, partially-coherent, and full-coherent codebooks for the claimed antenna configurations, Yang expressly discloses predefined codebook structures and precoding matrices for multiple antenna configurations, including 6-antenna and 8-antenna MIMO codebooks (e.g., Yang Figs. 3A-3D; ¶¶[0049]-[0060]). Yang therefore teaches the particular antenna-specific codebook structures that may be employed within Rahman's coherence-based codebook selection framework.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to employ Yang's standardized antenna-specific codebook structures within Rahman's coherence-based codebook selection framework because both references are directed to improving MIMO precoding performance through selection of appropriate precoding matrices according to antenna configuration and channel coherence. Employing Yang's explicit codebook structures in Rahman's framework merely substitutes one known set of antenna-specific precoding matrices for another to obtain the predictable benefit of supporting standardized antenna configurations, which is a predictable variation under KSR.
Accordingly, claim 1 is unpatentable over Rahman in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 2, Rahman discloses a wireless device selecting among coherent, partially coherent, and non-coherent precoding configurations (e.g., Rahman ¶255-259: “UE may report full, partial, and non-coherency…”). However, Rahman does not disclose the specific codebook matrices recited in “the wireless device is configured to… receive a transmit precoding matrix indicator field that indicates one of the following 8-antenna matrices:” followed by the explicit matrix set. Yang discloses explicit 8-antenna precoding matrices using ±1, ±j, and 1/√N normalization, including matrices matching the structure of the claimed non-coherent/partially-coherent sets (Yang Fig. 3A–3D; ¶¶49–60). It would have been obvious to apply Yang’s known explicit matrices to populate Rahman’s codebooks, because Rahman requires selecting from coherent/non-coherent precoding families but does not define particular matrix entries. A POSITA would incorporate Yang’s matrices to realize the codebook structures required by Rahman (KSR). Therefore, claim 2 is unpatentable over Rahman in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 3, Rahman discloses selecting codebooks for MIMO (¶255-259, ¶277), but does not disclose the specific set of precoding matrices recited in “indicates one of the following matrices:”. Yang teaches 8-antenna codebooks including complex entries (±1, ±j) and orthogonal/DFT structures corresponding to the matrices in claim 3 (Yang Fig. 4; ¶¶60–66). A POSITA would use Yang’s explicit matrices to instantiate Rahman’s precoding codebooks. Therefore, claim 3 is unpatentable over Rahman in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 4, Rahman discloses selecting among codebooks (¶255-259, 277) but does not disclose the explicit matrices recited in “transmit precoding matrix indicator field that indicates one of the following matrices:”. Yang discloses 8-antenna matrices with alternating ±j phase patterns and normalization consistent with claim 4 (Yang Fig. 5; ¶¶66–72). It would have been obvious to use Yang’s explicit matrices as concrete realizations of Rahman’s codebook families. Thus, claim 4 is unpatentable over Rahman in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 5, Rahman discloses codebook selection (¶255-259, 278) but lacks the specific matrices recited in “indicates one of the following four matrices:”. Yang discloses multi-beam and hybrid coherent matrices of identical structure (Fig. 6; ¶¶72–76). A POSITA would naturally implement Rahman’s precoding families using the explicit matrix sets taught by Yang. Thus, claim 5 is unpatentable over Rahman in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 6, Rahman discloses selecting among precoding families (¶255-259) but not the exact matrices recited in “indicates one of the following 4-antenna matrices:”. Yang discloses 4-antenna and 8-antenna sub-codebooks including block-diagonal matrices matching the structure of claim 6 (Yang Fig. 7; ¶¶76–82). It would have been obvious to adopt Yang’s matrices within Rahman’s precoder-selection framework. Thus, claim 6 is unpatentable over Rahman in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 7, Rahman again discloses general codebook selection but not the specific matrices in “the transmit precoding matrix indicator field indicates one of the following matrices:”. Yang provides 4-antenna partially coherent matrices with 1/√2 weighting (Fig. 8; ¶¶82–88) matching claim 7. Therefore, claim 7 is unpatentable over Rahman in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 8, Rahman lacks the explicit matrices recited in “the device is configured to select one of the following matrices:”. Yang Fig. 9 and ¶¶88–94 disclose phase-rotated 8-antenna matrices with 1/√8 normalization corresponding to the claimed forms. Combining Rahman’s codebook selection framework with Yang’s explicit matrices would have been obvious. Thus, claim 8 is unpatentable over Rahman in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 9, Rahman teaches The wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein the wireless communication device is configured with 8 antennas for the MIMO communication by disclosing an 8-antenna MIMO precoding configuration and selecting a transmit precoding matrix index (TPMI) from an uplink codebook for MIMO transmission (¶¶[0275]-[0278]).
Rahman further teaches transmitting or receiving using a transmit precoding matrix indicator (TPMI) selected from the codebook (¶¶[0275]-[0278]), but does not disclose the specific TPMI cardinalities recited in "one of 12 precoding matrices for use with 1 antenna, one of 20 precoding matrices for use with 2 antennas, one of 30 precoding matrices for use with 4 antennas, or one of 64 precoding matrices for use with 8 antennas."
Yang discloses codebooks having these TPMI set sizes for the corresponding antenna configurations (e.g., Yang ¶¶[0050]-[0055], [0058]-[0060]; Figs. 3A-3D), including an 8-antenna codebook having 64 precoding matrices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Yang's standardized TPMI codebook sizes when implementing Rahman's MIMO codebook-selection procedure because both references are directed to MIMO precoding using predefined codebooks, and employing known standardized codebook cardinalities would have predictably enabled interoperability and standardized precoding operation.
Accordingly, claim 9 is unpatentable over Rahman in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 10, Rahman teaches The wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein the wireless communication device is configured with 8 antennas for the MIMO communication by disclosing an 8-antenna MIMO precoding configuration and selecting a transmit precoding matrix indicator (TPMI) from an uplink codebook for MIMO transmission (¶¶[0275]-[0278]).
Rahman further teaches transmitting or receiving using a transmit precoding matrix indicator selected from the codebook (¶¶[0275]-[0278]), but does not disclose the specific TPMI cardinalities recited in "one of 27 precoding matrices for use with 1 antenna, one of 36 precoding matrices for use with 2 antennas, one of 30 precoding matrices for use with 4 antennas, or one of 64 precoding matrices for use with 8 antennas."
Yang discloses codebooks having these TPMI set sizes for the corresponding antenna configurations (e.g., Yang ¶¶[0050]-[0055], [0058]-[0060]; Figs. 3A-3D), including an 8-antenna codebook having 64 precoding matrices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Yang's standardized TPMI codebook sizes when implementing Rahman's MIMO codebook-selection procedure because both references are directed to MIMO precoding using predefined codebooks, and employing known standardized codebook cardinalities would have predictably enabled interoperability and standardized precoding operation.
Accordingly, claim 10 is unpatentable over Rahman in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 11, Rahman teaches The wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein the wireless communication device is configured with 8 antennas for the MIMO communication by disclosing an 8-antenna MIMO precoding configuration and selecting a transmit precoding matrix indicator (TPMI) from an uplink codebook for MIMO transmission (¶¶[0275]-[0278]).
Rahman further teaches transmitting or receiving using a transmit precoding matrix indicator selected from the codebook (¶¶[0275]-[0278]), but does not disclose the specific TPMI cardinalities recited in "one of 27 precoding matrices for use with 1 antenna, one of 36 precoding matrices for use with 2 antennas, one of 58 precoding matrices for use with 4 antennas, or one of 64 precoding matrices for use with 8 antennas."
Yang discloses codebooks having these TPMI set sizes for the corresponding antenna configurations (e.g., Yang ¶¶[0050]-[0055], [0058]-[0060]; Figs. 3A-3D), including an 8-antenna codebook having 64 precoding matrices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Yang's standardized TPMI codebook sizes when implementing Rahman's MIMO codebook-selection procedure because both references are directed to MIMO precoding using predefined codebooks, and employing known standardized codebook cardinalities would have predictably enabled interoperability and standardized precoding operation.
Accordingly, claim 11 is unpatentable over Rahman in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 12, Rahman teaches The wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein the wireless communication device is configured with 8 antennas for the MIMO communication by disclosing an 8-antenna MIMO precoding configuration and selecting a transmit precoding matrix indicator (TPMI) from an uplink codebook for MIMO transmission (¶¶[0275]-[0278]).
Rahman further teaches transmitting or receiving using a transmit precoding matrix indicator selected from the codebook (¶¶[0275]-[0278]), but does not disclose the specific TPMI field sizes recited in "a transmit precoding matrix indicator field that includes 4 bits to indicate a precoder for use with 1 antenna, 5 bits to indicate a precoder for use with 2 antennas, 6 bits to indicate a precoder for use with 4 antennas, or 7 bits to indicate a precoder for use with 8 antennas."
Yang discloses transmit precoding matrix indicator fields having bit lengths corresponding to the number of available precoding matrices for the respective antenna configurations, including 4-bit, 5-bit, 6-bit, and 7-bit TPMI fields for 1-, 2-, 4-, and 8-antenna codebooks, respectively (e.g., Yang ¶¶[0050]-[0060]; Figs. 3A-3D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Yang's standardized TPMI field sizes when implementing Rahman's MIMO codebook-selection procedure because both references are directed to MIMO precoding using predefined codebooks, and employing known TPMI field lengths would have predictably enabled signaling of the selected precoding matrix for the corresponding antenna configuration.
Accordingly, claim 12 is unpatentable over Rahman in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 13, Rahman teaches The wireless communication device of claim 1, wherein the wireless communication device is configured with 8 antennas for the MIMO communication by disclosing an 8-antenna MIMO precoding configuration and selecting a transmit precoding matrix indicator (TPMI) from an uplink codebook for MIMO transmission (¶¶[0275]-[0278]).
Rahman further teaches transmitting or receiving using a transmit precoding matrix indicator selected from the codebook (¶¶[0275]-[0278]), but does not disclose the specific TPMI cardinalities recited in "one of 12 precoding matrices for use with 1 antenna, one of 52 precoding matrices for use with 2 antennas or 4 antennas, or one of 64 precoding matrices for use with 8 antennas."
Yang discloses codebooks having these TPMI set sizes for the corresponding antenna configurations (e.g., Yang ¶¶[0050]-[0060]; Figs. 3A-3D), including codebooks having 12, 52, and 64 precoding matrices.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ Yang's standardized TPMI codebook sizes when implementing Rahman's MIMO codebook-selection procedure because both references are directed to MIMO precoding using predefined codebooks, and employing known standardized codebook cardinalities would have predictably enabled interoperability and standardized precoding operation.
Accordingly, claim 13 is unpatentable over Rahman in view of Yang.
For each of claims 14–30, Rahman teaches a device selecting from non-coherent, partially coherent, and coherent codebooks (¶255-259–278), but Rahman does not disclose the explicit complex-valued matrices recited in these claims (e.g., entries ±1, ±j, ±e^{jπ/2}, 1/√N scaling, block-diagonal structures). Yang provides explicit matrix definitions for 4-antenna and 8-antenna codebooks matching the mathematical structure of the claimed matrices (Yang Figs. 3–13; ¶¶49–100). A POSITA would incorporate Yang’s explicit NR-compatible matrix sets into Rahman’s codebook-selection logic to realize complete MIMO codebooks. Therefore, each of claims 14–30 is unpatentable over Rahman in view of Yang.
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 LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9 AM - 6 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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468
Prosecution Insights