DETAILED ACTION
This action is in response to the application filed on 9 January 2024.
Claims 1-30 are under examination.
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 .
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant's cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
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 transceiver/TX/RX baseband processing controlled by processor 225 (¶[0039]–[0042]). Thus, Rahman discloses a wireless device with memory and processors.
Rahman further discloses that the processors are configured to “select a codebook for a multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) communication from among one or more codebooks”.Rahman ¶[0275] explicitly describes that a UE reports its coherence capability (full, partial, or non-coherent) and that the MIMO precoding configuration is selected accordingly: “the UE may report full, partial, and non-coherency… for an indication of a TPMI and a number of layers to the BS.”Rahman ¶¶[0277]–[0278] and Fig. 10 describe the BS selecting a PMI (precoding matrix index) from multiple possible precoder sets (“codebooks”) based on the UE capability.
Rahman further discloses codebooks that “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 wireless communication device, or full-coherent codebooks for the 6 or 8 antennas”.Rahman ¶[0275] describes precoding for UEs with 2, 4, or 8 antenna ports, with non-coherent, partially coherent, and full coherent operation.Rahman ¶¶[0277]–[0278] describe selection of the appropriate precoding matrix (PMI) based on the UE’s coherent capability.Rahman Fig. 10 explicitly shows branching between full, partial, and non-coherent precoding matrix sets depending on capability reports.
These disclosures correspond to selecting a codebook for MIMO communication from among fully coherent, partially coherent, and non-coherent codebooks, and transmitting/receiving using the selected codebook, as recited in the claim.
Assuming arguendo that Rahman does not explicitly disclose codebooks defined for a six-antenna configuration (although it expressly teaches 2, 4, and 8 antennas), Yang provides explicit codebook structures, precoding sets, and matrix examples for multiple antenna configurations including 6-antenna and 8-antenna precoding (e.g., Yang Fig. 3A–3D; ¶¶[0049]–[0060]). Yang thus supplies any arguendo missing teaching regarding selecting among codebooks suitable for a device having 6 antennas.
It would have been obvious to a POSITA to incorporate Yang’s explicit 6-antenna codebook structures into Rahman’s codebook-selection framework because Rahman already teaches selecting among coherent, partially coherent, and non-coherent codebooks based on antenna capability, and Yang provides standardized, well-known NR/LTE-derived codebook structures for those antenna counts. Substituting one known antenna-specific codebook size (6 antennas) into an existing codebook-selection mechanism constitutes a predictable and routine design choice (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 ¶275: “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 (¶275, ¶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 (¶275–277) 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 (¶275–278) 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 (¶275) 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 selecting a precoding matrix index from a codebook for an 8-antenna device (¶275–278), but does not disclose the specific PMI counts recited in “one of 12 precoding matrices for 1 antenna, one of 20… one of 30… one of 64…”. Yang discloses codebooks with these PMI set sizes (e.g., Yang ¶¶50–55, 58–60) and provides examples of 8-antenna codebooks with 64 entries. A POSITA would adopt the known PMI entry counts taught by Yang when implementing Rahman’s codebook-selection procedure. Thus, claim 9 is unpatentable over Rahman in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 10, Rahman does not disclose the specific PMI counts recited in “one of 27… one of 36… one of 30… one of 64 precoding matrices.” Yang discloses variations of codebook sizes for 1, 2, 4, and 8 antenna ports, including 27-entry and 36-entry sets (Yang ¶¶56–63; Figs. 3–6). A POSITA would find it obvious to apply Yang’s PMI sizes to instantiate Rahman’s codebooks. Thus, claim 10 is unpatentable over Rahman in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 11, Rahman does not disclose PMI table sizes recited in “one of 27… 36… 58… 64 matrices.” Yang expressly teaches extended 4-antenna codebooks including 58 entries (Yang Fig. 9; ¶92–94). Using Yang’s known PMI sizes to implement Rahman’s codebook selection is obvious. Thus, claim 11 is unpatentable over Rahman in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 12, Rahman does not disclose PMI bit-widths recited in “4 bits for 1 antenna, 5 bits for 2 antennas… 7 bits for 8 antennas.” Yang teaches PMI encoding sizes mapping directly to bit widths (Yang ¶¶50–55). It would have been obvious to determine PMI bit-widths from the number of matrices using log2(N), a standard requirement. Thus, claim 12 is unpatentable over Rahman in view of Yang.
Regarding claim 13, Rahman lacks the explicit PMI set sizes recited in “12 matrices for 1 antenna, 52 for 2 or 4 antennas, 64 for 8 antennas.” Yang discloses these entry counts in extended codebooks (Yang ¶¶88–94). Combining them with Rahman’s framework is obvious. Thus, 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 (¶275–278), 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure (see form 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARCUS R SMITH whose telephone number is (571)270-1096. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00 AM -5:00 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) 272-0734. 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