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 .
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.
Claims 1, 5, 8, 12, 15, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US Publication 2021/0050893 A1) in view of Li et al (US Publication 2021/0273708 A1)
Regarding to claims 1, 8, and 15, Park discloses a device 1505 comprising: a transceiver 1520; and a processor 1540 operably connected to the transceiver, the processor configured to: select a set of beams to be used for SRS (page 12 paragraph 0105) full-channel reconstruction 215 (fig. 2 page 10 paragraph 0094) in a multi-user multiple-input multiple-output MU-MIMO system 110 (page 8 paragraph 0076); generate an analog precoding matrix FRF/WRF for hybrid analog-digital precoding in the MU-MIMO system (page 11 paragraph 0100); and communicate with multiple users using the MU-MIMO system and the analog precoding matrix (page 11 paragraph 0099).
Park fails to teach for the set of beams are orthogonal.
Li discloses a device 110 (fig. 1) selecting orthogonal beam groups for constructing a precoding matrix (fig. 3 page 13 paragraph 0181).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange for orthogonal beams groups as taught by Li into Park’s system to balance the feedback overhead and reduce the inter-layer interference.
Regarding to claims 5, 12, and 19, Park discloses scheduling the multiple users for communication (page 24 paragraph 0234).
Claims 2, 9, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Li and Lei et al (US Publication 2003/0190897 A1).
Regarding to claims 2, 9, and 16, Park and Li combined discloses all the limitations with respect to claims 1, 8, and 15, except for select the set of orthogonal beams using one of: a rotated discrete Fourier transform; a best single beam technique; eigen value decomposition; or modified eigen value decomposition. However, Lei discloses a device 104 for select a set of orthogonal beams using eigen value decomposition (page 5 paragraph 0052). Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to arrange for selecting a set of orthogonal beams using eigen value decomposition as taught by Lei into the combination of Park and Li’s system to control the directivity of the beams.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 20 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Duc T Duong whose telephone number is (571)272-3122. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri; 9am-6pm.
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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at (571)272-3940. 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.
/DUC T DUONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467