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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in response to the application filed on 03/14/2024.
Claims 1-20 are currently pending.
Claims 2-3, 6-8, 10, 12-13, 16-18, 20 objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims.
Claims 1, 4-5, 9, 11, 14-15, 19 are rejected.
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, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasanthan Raghavan et al (US 20250047359 A1) in view of Gregory Raleigh et al (US 20040157646 A1).
For Claim 1, Raghavan discloses an apparatus for wireless communications (Raghavan teaches, in ¶ 0057, the wireless communication device described herein is the network node 110, is included in the network node 110, or includes one or more components of the network node 110 shown in FIG. 2), comprising: at least one memory comprising instructions; and
one or more processors (Raghavan teaches, in FIG. 2, that the communication device comprises the controller/processor 240, memory 242 … store data and program codes for the network node 110,), individually or collectively, configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to:
obtain a first set of transmissions via multiple antenna elements from multiple antenna modules of the apparatus by using a set of beam weights (Raghavan teaches, in FIG. 5, step 540, that the wireless device 510 may transmit an indication of the selected beam weights. The indication may be via any combination of Layer 1 (L1), Layer 2 (L2), or Layer 3 (L3) signaling), wherein one or more of the multiple antenna elements are associated with first parameter information (Raghavan teaches, in ¶ 0101, lines 9-11, that the wireless device 510 may transmit reference signals for measurement and comparison of beam performance achieved to beam property specifications);
output a second set of transmissions via the multiple antenna elements by using the set of beam weights, wherein the one or more of the multiple antenna elements are associated with second parameter information (Raghavan teaches, in FIG. 5, step 545, that the wireless device 510 may transmit an indication of beam property specifications. The beam property specifications may be different beam property specifications or updated beam property specifications); and
adjust the set of beam weights in accordance with one or more differences between the first parameter information and the second parameter information (Raghavan teaches, in FIG. 5, step 555, that the UE 520 may adapt beam weights based at least in part on the beam property specifications and measurements of the reference signals. For example, the UE 520 may update one or more beam weights based at least in part on a gradient descent).
Raghavan teaches, in ¶ 0050, that FIG. 2 is a diagram illustrating an example 200 of a network node 110 in communication with a UE 120 in a wireless network 100, in accordance with the present disclosure. The network node 110 may be equipped with a set of antennas 234a through 234t, such as T antennas (T≥1). The UE 120 may be equipped with a set of antennas 252a through 252r, such as R antennas (R≥1). Herein the R antennas are mapped to the claimed receive portion of a RF circuit while T antennas are mapped to the claimed transmit portion of a RF circuit.
Raghavan fails to expressly disclose that the parameter information indicates at least one of: a phase response or an amplitude response corresponding to a radio frequency (RF) circuit of the one or more of the multiple antenna elements.
However, Raleigh, in the analogous art, discloses the parameter information indicates at least one of: a phase response or an amplitude response corresponding to a radio frequency (RF) circuit of the one or more of the multiple antenna elements (Raleigh teaches, in ¶ 0058, In an alternate embodiment, the optimum transmit beam pattern weight vector is selected from a finite set of pre-determined weight vectors, {W.sub.T} giving rise to a corresponding set of predefined transmit beam patterns. In this case the beam pattern may be formed by, for example, selectively assigning fixed amplitude and phase weights to each antenna element via a network of switched RF phased array elements).
Raleigh also teaches, in ¶ 0067, It is nonetheless to be understood that the compilation of other statistical characterizations of the receive array response vector as a means of determining an optimum transmit beam weight vector is also within the scope of the present invention.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission system taught in Raghavan with the adaptive transmit beamforming taught in Raleigh. The motivation to improve communication traffic capacity, and/or to increase base station coverage area, and/or to improve call quality [Park: ¶ 0017].
For Claim 9, Raghavan discloses an apparatus, wherein the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to: obtain a configuration of a set of beams (Raghavan teaches, in FIG. 5, step 540, that the wireless device 510 may transmit an indication of the selected beam weights. The indication may be via any combination of Layer 1 (L1), Layer 2 (L2), or Layer 3 (L3) signaling); and use the set of beams for the obtaining of the first set of transmissions and the outputting of the second set of transmissions (Raghavan teaches, in FIG. 5, step 575, that the UE 520 may communicate using a beam with enhanced beam properties that satisfy the beam property specifications).
For Claim 11, please refer to the rejection of Claim 1, above.
For Claim 19, please refer to the rejection of Claim 1, above.
Claims 4-5, 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vasanthan Raghavan et al (US 20250047359 A1) in view of Gregory Raleigh et al (US 20040157646 A1) as applied to claim 1, or 11 above, and further in view of Simon Svendsen et al (US 20230283417 A1).
For Claims 4, 14, Raghavan and Raleigh disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of using a difference between a first phase response corresponding to the at least one antenna element and a second phase response corresponding to the at least one antenna element.
However, Svendsen, in the analogous art, discloses using a difference between a first phase response corresponding to the at least one antenna element and a second phase response corresponding to the at least one antenna element (Svendsen teaches, in ¶ 0073, that The beam-steering direction of the first downlink beam 32 can be controlled by adjusting the relative phase difference and relative amplitude difference between the antenna elements 24 of the first part 30).
Svendsen further teaches, in ¶ 0011, dynamically adjusting a first number of antenna elements in the first part of the antenna array panel and a second number of antenna elements in the second part of the antenna array panel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission system taught in Raghavan and Raleigh with the number of antenna elements in the first and second parts as taught in Svendsen. The motivation is to enable inter-band carrier aggregation at a receiver using a first component carrier received at the first part of the antenna array panel via the first downlink beam and a second component carrier received at the second part of the antenna array panel via the second downlink beam [Svendsen: ¶ 0037].
For Claims 5, 15, Raghavan and Raleigh disclose all of the claimed subject matter with the exception of using a difference between a first amplitude response corresponding to the at least one antenna element and a second amplitude response corresponding to the at least one antenna element.
However, Svendsen, in the analogous art, discloses using a difference between a first amplitude response corresponding to the at least one antenna element and a second amplitude response corresponding to the at least one antenna element (Svendsen teaches, in ¶ 0073, that The beam-steering direction of the first downlink beam 32 can be controlled by adjusting the relative phase difference and relative amplitude difference between the antenna elements 24 of the first part 30).
Svendsen further teaches, in ¶ 0011, dynamically adjusting a first number of antenna elements in the first part of the antenna array panel and a second number of antenna elements in the second part of the antenna array panel.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the transmission system taught in Raghavan and Raleigh with the number of antenna elements in the first and second parts as taught in Svendsen. The motivation is to enable inter-band carrier aggregation at a receiver using a first component carrier received at the first part of the antenna array panel via the first downlink beam and a second component carrier received at the second part of the antenna array panel via the second downlink beam [Svendsen: ¶ 0037].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 6-8, 10, 12-13, 16-18, 20 objected to as being dependent upon rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claims 2-3, 6-8, 10, 12-13, 16-18, 20 are considered allowable because the prior art does not teach limitations including:
“obtain first symbol information corresponding to the multiple antenna elements; and compute the first parameter information , said computation using the set of beam weights and the first symbol information,” in addition to other claim limitations as recited, in various permutations, in dependent claims 2, 12.
“obtain second symbol information corresponding to the multiple antenna elements; and compute the second parameter information, said computation using the set of beam weights and the second symbol information,” in addition to other claim limitations as recited, in various permutations, in dependent claims 3, 13.
“the first antenna module comprises a first quantity of antenna elements and a first set of radio frequency integrated circuit (RFIC) chips controlling the first quantity of antenna elements; and the second antenna module comprises a second quantity of antenna elements and a second set of RFIC chips controlling the second quantity of antenna elements,” in addition to other claim limitations as recited, in various permutations, in dependent claims 6, 16, 20.
“the configuration indicates one or more unitary matrices indicating one or more sets of beam weights; and the one or more processors, individually or collectively, are configured to execute the instructions and cause the apparatus to use the one or more unitary matrices for the obtaining of the first set of transmissions and the outputting of the second set of transmissions,” in addition to other claim limitations as recited, in various permutations, in dependent claim 10.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Zheng (US 20100117903 A1) teaches wireless communications systems and methods, and more particularly to antenna systems and methods for terrestrial and/or satellite wireless communications systems.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED A KAMARA whose telephone number is (571)270-5629. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9AM-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, CHARLES JIANG can be reached on 5712707191. 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.
/MOHAMED A KAMARA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2412
/CHARLES C JIANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2412