DETAILED ACTION
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on June 24, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on May 28, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the rejections of claims 1-9, 11-18, and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §102: Although Manssour may not explicitly disclose the limitation wherein “the MIMO rank indicator identifies a number of data streams that are to be spatially multiplexed on a same radio frequency (RF) channel using multiple antennas or antenna elements” (as recited in the amendments to independent claims 1, 11, and 20), these amended claim limitations are believed to be known or obvious in the art. See the detailed rejection under 35 U.S.C. §103 below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claims 1-9, 11-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MANSSOUR et al. (US 2016/0183291 A1), hereinafter “Manssour”.
Manssour illustrates examples of internal actions and/or communication and messages between a network efficiency node (100) and a UE (140) in Figure 6. As shown in Figure 6, an embodiment information may be retrieved in action (A1) of UE (140) configuration data. In action (A2) an indicator of a first channel capability may be received from the UE (140). In action (A3) a first data transport unit size may be determined based on the received indicator of the first channel capability. In action (A4) a second channel capability different than the received indicated first channel capability may be selected and limited based on the information of the UE (140) configuration data. In action (A5) a second data transport unit size may be determined based on the selected second channel capability. In action (A6) scheduling information may be transmitted to the UE (140) to use the second data transport unit size. In action (A7) the first rank may be override with a second rank. In action (A8) the network efficiency node (100) may receive “ACK” from the UE (140) confirming successful reception of data. In (A9) the MCS (Modulation and Coding Schema) may be changed, such that the MCS in combination with the second rank provides a different transport unit size. In action (A10) the scheduling information may be transmitted to the UE (140) to use the different transport unit size. In action (A11) a “NACK” may be received from the UE (140), indicating unsuccessful reception of data. In action (A12) the first transport unit size may be selected by the network efficiency node (100), based on the received indicator of the first channel capability. In action (A13) an instruction may be transmitted use the first transport unit size from the network efficiency node (100) to the UE (140).
Regarding claim 1, as shown in Figure 6, Manssour illustrates a method of communication and messages between the network efficiency node (100) and the UE (140), comprising: receiving, by a device (network efficiency node 100), a multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) rank indicator (first channel capability, note, channel capability refers to the maximum data rate that can be transmitted over a communication channel under specific conditions, often described using Shannon’s capacity formular. It considers factors like bandwidth, signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), and channel conditions. In contrast, MIMO measurement reports focus on the performance of systems using multiple antennas at both the transmitter and receiver ends. These reports typically include metrics such as: channel capacity, diversity gain, multiplexing gain, and channel state information (CSI), which are not new in the wireless communications described in at least paragraphs [0004], [0005], [0009], 0012], [0014], and [0020] in the background and summary of the invention) from a user equipment (UE) device (UE 140); determining, by the device, that the received MIMO rank indicator is lower than an expected MIMO rank indicator (as described in paragraph [0012], in one possible embodiment, the indicator of the first channel capability may comprise at least one of: Reference Signal Received Power (RSRP), Hybrid Automatic Repeat Request (HARQ) feedback, Channel Quality Information (CQI), Precoding Matrix Indicator (PMI), and Rank Indicator (RI). At least the PMI is included in the received MIMO rank indicator is lower than an expected MIMO rank indicator as recited in claim 3); determining, by the device, that the UE device satisfies one or more criteria for a MIMO rank indicator override; and overriding, by the device, the MIMO rank indicator for the UE device, in response to determining that the received MIMO rank indicator is lower than the expected MIMO rank indicator and determining that the UE device satisfies the one or more criteria for the MIMO rank indicator override (A7 overrides the first rank with the second rank based on one or more criteria A1-A6 for the MIMO rank indicator).
Although Manssour does not explicitly disclose the limitation wherein “the MIMO rank indicator identifies a number of data streams that are to be spatially multiplexed on a same radio frequency (RF) channel using multiple antennas or antenna elements” as recited in the amendments to claim 1, a MIMO Rank Indicator (RI) is the specific metric reported by a receiving device (like your phone) back to the transmitter (the cell tower). It dictates how many “spatial streams” or “layers” can be successfully transmitted at the same time on the very same frequency. The number of streams is tied to the physical properties of the radio channel. If the transmission environment has rich signal reflections (multipath propagation), the channel matrix has multiple independent “ranks”. If the signal is clear of interference, the rank is high (e.g., Rank 4 means 4 independent streams). If signal quality is poor, the rank drops to 1, effectively shutting off spatial multiplexing to ensure reliability. Spatial multiplexing relies on Singular Value Decomposition (SVD), a mathematical matrix operation that has been known for over a century, and applied to radio communications since the late 1990s. In modern systems like 5G and advanced cellular evaluations, this same principle simply scales up to accommodate larger antenna arrays, known as Massive MIMO.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the network efficiency node 100 of Manssour’s communication system to receive a MIMO rank indicator from the UE 140. This MIMO rank indicator identifies the number of data streams to be spatially multiplexed on a single radio frequency (RF) channel using multiple antennas, informing the transmitter of the maximum number of independent data streams (spatial layers) the radio channel can support. At any given moment, this MIMO rank indicator functions as a channel capability indicator that directs the network on how to optimize spectral efficiency and data throughput.
Regarding apparatus claim 11 and non-transitory computer-readable memory device claim 20 (storing instructions executable by a processor): as shown in Figure 4 and described in at least paragraphs [0066], [0080], and [0081], a processor (250) and a memory (260) are provided for performing the claim features. These features correspond to the method steps recited in method claim 1, for the same reasons as described above in reference to claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, wherein receiving the MIMO rank indicator from the UE device includes retrieving the MIMO rank indicator from a measurement report received from the UE device (such as the CSI report, the reported rank, and/or the measured signal quality, described in at least paragraphs [0004], [0020], [0029], [0037], and [0065]).
Regarding claims 3 and 12, wherein determining that the received MIMO rank indicator is lower than the expected MIMO rank indicator includes: determining the expected MIMO rank indicator based on at least one of a Sounding Reference Signal (SRS) associated with the UE device or a Precoding Matrix Indicator (PMI) associated with the UE device (such as the PMI described in at least paragraphs [0012] and [0043]).
Regarding claims 4 and 13, wherein determining that the UE device satisfies one or more criteria for the MIMO rank indicator override includes: determining that a channel quality value associated with the UE device is greater than a channel quality threshold (as described in at least paragraphs [0012] and [0043], determining the MIMO Rank Indicator (RI) inherently involves assessing channel quality; the RI selects the optimal number of spatial layers (transmission rank) for the best data rate given the current channel conditions, with higher ranks only chosen when the channel quality supports multiple independent paths, meaning a threshold for sufficient quality must be met for higher ranks, making it intrinsically tied to channel quality metrics like the CQI and the PMI).
Regarding claims 5 and 14, as described in at least paragraphs [0018] and [0019], Although Manssour does not explicitly teach whether this specific set of criteria (reduction of transmission power in a neighboring cell, muting neighbor cells, estimating correct UE rank, and cell loading condition being above a threshold), it is inherently applied or required to satisfy a general “MIMO rank indicator override” depends entirely on the specific implementation, the particular wireless standard (e.g., specific 3GPP release for LTE or 5G NR). Therefore, the determining that the UE device satisfies one or more criteria for the MIMO rank indicator override inherently includes: determining that a cell loading condition associated with the UE device is greater than a cell loading threshold.
Regarding claims 6 and 15, wherein determining that the UE device satisfies one or more criteria for the MIMO rank indicator override includes: determining that the UE device has been classified as a candidate for the MIMO rank indicator override. As described in at least paragraphs [0012] and [0043], determining that the UE device satisfies the criteria for the MIMO rank indicator override inherently includes determining that the UE has been classified is a candidate for the override process.
In telecommunications systems, particularly in standards like 5G (NR), the process is generally sequential and hierarchical. For example, in candidacy classification, a system first classifies a group of UEs as potential candidates for advanced features like RI override based on general conditions (e.g., capability signaling, network load, or specific service requirements). Therefore, if a device meets the specific criteria required to execute the override, it must, by definition, have already met the prerequisite classification of being a candidate for the procedure. The classification as a candidate is a necessary preliminary step to even apply the specific criteria.
Regarding claims 7 and 16, wherein the UE device is classified as the candidate for the MIMO rank indicator override is inherently based on at least one of: an application in use by the UE device, a Quality of Service (QoS) parameter for a data flow associated with the UE device, a network slice in use by the UE device, a Multi-Access Edge Computing (MEC) service in use by the UE device, or a location associated with the UE device. For example, increase the data throughput to a UE (140) described in at least paragraphs [0036], [0038], [0050], and [0067].
A UE device classified as a candidate for the MIMO rank indicator override is based on at least one of these factors, according to mechanisms described in 3GPP standards, such as the UE Assistance Information (UAI) framework. The specific factors include:
An application in use by the UE device: The type of application (e.g., low-throughput vs. high-throughput) can be used to determine if a lower MIMO rank is suitable for power saving.
A Quality of Service (QoS) parameter for a data flow associated with the UE device: The required QoS, such as guaranteed bit rate, can dictate the optimal MIMO configuration needed to meet service requirements.
A network slice in use by the UE device: Different network slices are designed for specific service requirements (e.g., low latency, high bandwidth) which inherently suggest different potential MIMO configurations.
A Multi-Access Edge Computing (MEC) service in use by the UE device: The use of MEC services implies specific latency or data rate requirements that may influence the preferred MIMO rank.
A location associated with the UE device: The location and associated channel conditions (e.g., cell center vs. cell edge) affect the optimal number of MIMO layers that can be reliably supported.
Regarding claims 8 and 17, wherein overriding the MIMO rank indicator for the UE device inherently includes: selecting a MIMO rank greater than the received MIMO rank indicator for the UE device; and including information identifying the selected MIMO rank in downlink channel information (DCD) sent to the UE device.
Note, overriding the MIMO rank indicator (RI) inherently includes both actions: the network selects a potentially different MIMO rank, and it informs the User Equipment (UE) of this selected rank through Downlink Control Information (DCI) messages. The network (e.g., eNodeB or gNB) decides the optimal rank to use based on its own algorithms and network conditions, which can be either greater or smaller than the UE's recommendation.
Regarding claims 9 and 18, as described in at least paragraphs [0014] and [0015], as used in wireless communication systems like LTE and 5G, the link adaptation process that adjusts the Modulation and Coding Scheme (MCS) to maintain the Block Error Rate (BLER) within a determined interval (typically around a 10% target BLER) inherently aims to keep the BLER value below a certain BLER threshold. This process directly relates to the conditions for adapting other parameters, such as the MIMO rank indicator. Therefore, the mechanism that uses MCS changes to keep the BLER in a target interval is the underlying process that ensures the BLER condition is met for other adaptations, including the decision to override or change the MIMO rank indicator. The system is designed to use the result of the BLER management as a condition for making further adjustments to the transmission scheme (MCS/Rank/etc.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
CHEN et al. relates to a user equipment (UE) receives a reference symbol from the base station (eNB), processes the reference symbol with one or more of a plurality of precoding matrices to form a plurality of channel quality indices (CQI), and provides feedback to the eNB comprising one or more feedback CQI selected from the plurality of CQI and one or more precoding matrix indicators (PMI) identifying the one or more precoding matrices used to form each of the one or more feedback CQIs for two or more ranks.
QIANG et al. relates to a method of operating a network node includes: receiving a first precoding matrix indicator (PMI), from a UE, wherein the first PMI is based on an antenna-grouping codebook, selecting a non-antenna-grouping codebook for downlink multi-user multiple input, multiple output, MU-MIMO transmission; determining a second PMI of the non-antenna-grouping codebook based on the first PMI of the antenna-grouping codebook; and performing MU-MIMO pairing and beamforming toward the UE based on the second PMI of the non-antenna-grouping codebook.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Young T. Tse whose telephone number is (571)272-3051. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 10:30am-7pm.
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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/Young T. Tse/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights