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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 4 and 13-15 are objected to because of the following informalities: It is unclear as to whether “j” is an integer or a fraction of an integer. The same remark applies to claims 13-15.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. 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.
4. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1-2, 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Nammi (US 2015/0288435 A1), in view of Baldemair et al. (US2012/0099666 A1), hereinafeter Baldemair, and the admitted prior art at paragraphs 0034 of the instant application, hereinafter referred to as APA.
Regarding claim 1, Nammi teaches a Network Node, a UE operable in a MIMO system and respective methods performed by the Network Node and UE are provided for determining a precoder of a Codebook to use for transmissions to the UE. The Network Node includes at least two transmitting antennas corresponding to two individual Ranks. The Network Node determines which precoders the UE shall evaluate, and transmits, to the UE, the determined precoders the UE shall evaluate. The Network Node receives, from the UE, a PMI, associated with one of the determined precoders, which the UE requests the Network Node to use for transmission to the UE; and the Network Node transmits, to the UE, data using the requested precoders, see abstract, step 130-fig.1 of “receiving PMI from UE indicating requested precoder”, wherein the 3GPP standard specifies a codebook of 64 elements, see 0006 (equivalent to receiving an indication of a requested precoder from a user equipment, wherein the requested precoder is included in a codebook defined in a 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) specification).
Nammi, however, fails to teach: (1) applying a modified precoder corresponding to the requested precoder, wherein the modified precoder is included in a modified codebook that is a modified version of the codebook defined in the 3GPP specification; and (2) transmitting a double-symbol demodulation reference signal with the modified precoder to the user equipment.
Blademair from the same field of endeavor of that of Nammi teaches the conventional codebook used for precoding signals, e.g. the standardized 3GPP codebook, is modified (modified codebook), such that the codebook comprises at least one precoder which is already adapted (modified precoder) to the transmit power requirements of the transmitting network node 210-fig.2, see 0153. Thus, the adapted precoder can be configured to correspond to the requested precoder of Nammi.
The APA from the same field of endeavor of that of Nammi teaches: (1) for 5G NR systems, the specific design and mapping for downlink DMRS can be defined using the fields of the DMRS-DownlinkConfig information element (IE) as described in Section 6.3.2 of 3GPP Technical Specification (TS) 38.331 and discussed in Sections 7.4.1.1.1-7.4.1.1.2 of 3GPP TS 38.211. As discussed in Section 6.3.2 of 3GPP TS 38.331, the maximum number of OFDM symbols for downlink front-loaded DMRS is defined using the parameter maxLength, which can be set to “len1” for single-symbol DMRS or “len2” for double -symbol DMRS (equivalent to a double-symbol demodulation reference signal), see 0034.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a modified precoder in a modified codebook taught by Baldemair, and a double-symbol demodulation reference signal taught by the APA, according to the 3GPP specification into the system of Nammi. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to improve power efficiency for precoded transmission in and OFDM-based wireless communications system.
Regarding claim 2, see the rejection of claim 1. In Baldemair, the conventional codebook used for precoding signals, e.g. the standardized 3GPP codebook, is modified (modified codebook), see 0153.
Regarding claim 7, please see the rejection of claim 1. In Baldemair, steps 402-408 correspond to those described above in connection with FIG. 4. The receiving node 240 determines at least a first parameter related to the power transmit requirements of the transmitting node 210, sends the parameter to the transmitting node, then selects a precoder W and indicates the selected precoder (requested precoder) to the transmitting node 210. In a step 416, the transmitting node 210 then determines a modified precoder {tilde over (W)} in the same manner as described above, i.e. using the selected precoder W and the parameter or parameters received in step 404, and the data signal to be transmitted is precoded at the transmitting network node 210-fig.4 using the modified precoder, see 0117, 0118 and 0121. In other words, Baldemair teaches generating the modified precoder in response to the requested precoder from the UE.
Regarding claim 9, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Nammi –Baldemair- APA for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. Nammi teaches a network node 300-fig.3
Regarding claim 10, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 2. Therefore, it is rejected under Nammi –Baldemair- APA for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 2.
8. Claims 5, 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Nammi, in view of Baldemair and the admitted prior art, and further in view of Park et al. (US 2020/0177252 A1), hereinafter Park.
Regarding claim 5, Nammi, Baldemair and the APA disclose all claimed limitations, except wherein the codebook defined in the 3GPP specification is a Type 1 Single-Pannel Codebook.
Park from the same field of endeavor as that of Nammi teaches: (1) codebooks may be defined as various types. In NR (New RAT), there are mainly two types of codebooks: Type 1 codebook and Type2 codebook. Further, each type may be sub-divided depending on whether it is a codebook for a single panel or a codebook for multi-panels (e.g., Type-1 single/multi-panel codebook and Type 2 single/multi-panel codebook), see 0090; (2) a codebook defined in 3GPP, see 0307.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a Type 1 single-panel codebook of a 3GPP specification taught by Park into the combined system of Nammi-Baldemair- the APA. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide a new codebook for supporting beamforming through multiple panes newly introduced in NR.
Regarding claim 11, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected under Nammi –Baldemair- APA-Park for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 5.
9. Claims 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the Nammi, in view of Baldemair and the admitted prior art, and further in view of Yang et al. (US 2020/0186310 A1), hereinafter Yang.
Regarding claim 8, Nammi, Baldemair and the APA disclose all claimed limitations, except, wherein applying the modified precoder causes transmit power to be balanced equally across multiple antennas for each demodulation reference signal symbol.
Yang from the same field of endeavor of that of Nammi discloses applying a phase rotation scheme such as phase rotation matrix Φ may result in a mapping of DMRS symbols to antenna ports that balances the power between or across DMRS symbols on each antenna port, see 0113; wherein a transmitting device may apply a phase rotation scheme to the DMRS (e.g., in addition to applying the precoder and OCC) to generate a DMRS that has balanced power across DMRS symbols and, optionally, balanced power across DMRS tones and/or across the antenna ports used to transmit the DMRS. In some cases, the transmitting device may determine (e.g., select) a phase rotation scheme based on the precoder that will be applied, or based on the OCC to be applied, or based on the combination of the precoder and OCC. In some cases, the transmitting device may select the phase rotation scheme to satisfy a power imbalance threshold such that the power difference between DMRS symbols is less than or equal to the power imbalance threshold (e.g., so that there is zero difference in power). In some cases, the transmitter may determine the phase rotation scheme based on other optimization criteria, see 0006, 0120, 0128.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a phase rotation scheme that balance the power across DMRS symbols into the combined system of Nammi-Baldemair-the APA. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to reduce or eliminate power imbalance between adjacent DMRS symbols transmitted during MIMO communications (and in some cases also reduce or eliminate the power imbalance between antenna ports) that may arise when the transmitting device applies certain combinations of OCC and precoder to the DMRS prior to transmission.
Regarding claim 13, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 5. Therefore, it is rejected under Nammi –Baldemair- APA-Yang for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 8.
Allowable subject matter
10. Claims 3, 6, 12 and 16-19 are rejected based on its dependency, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
11. Claims 4 and 13-15 are rejected based on its dependency, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the objection set forth in this Office action, and to
include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
12. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Gomadam (US 2014/0185476 A1); Xu et al. (US 11,553,488 B2)
are cited, and considered pertinent to the instant specification.
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUC C HO whose telephone number is (571)272-3147. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached on 571-270-1420 (Gary.mui@uspto.gov). 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DUC C HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights