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
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 04/01/2024 has been considered by Examiner and made of record in the application file.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “… - determination of an information item representative of a signal distortion caused by the own hardware impairments of the access point, and - transmission, via said fronthaul link, of said information item representative of said signal distortion caused to another access point, or to the central unit of a base station, directly following it within a fronthaul link comprising a plurality of access points in series, ordered along a predetermined direction of travel of said fronthaul link…” in lines 3-8. Those limitations are identical repeat in lines 10-15 of the same claim. Claim 9 also recites “… reception, via said fronthaul link, and taking into account an information item representative of a signal distortion caused by the hardware impairments of an access point directly preceding it within said fronthaul link so as to determine the local precoding filters of said access point or of said central unit configured to cancel said distortion signal caused by hardware impairments of the access point preceding it …” in lines 16-20. Those limitations are identical repeat in lines 22-26 of the same claim. Clarification for those limitations are required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
4. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
5. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter.
Claim 11 is drawn to a “program” per se as recited in the preamble and as such is non-statutory subject matter. See MPEP § 2106.IV.B.1.a. Data structures not claimed as embodied in computer readable media are descriptive material per se and are not statutory because they are not capable of causing functional change in the computer. See, e.g., Warmerdam, 33 F.3d at 1361, 31 USPQ2d at 1760 (claim to a data structure per se held nonstatutory). Such claimed data structures do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and other claimed aspects of the invention, which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized. In contrast, a claimed computer readable medium encoded with a data structure defines structural and functional interrelationships between the data structure and the computer software and hardware components which permit the data structure's functionality to be realized, and is thus statutory. Similarly, computer programs claimed as computer listings per se, i.e., the descriptions or expressions of the programs are not physical “things.” They are neither computer components nor statutory processes, as they are not “acts” being performed. Such claimed computer programs do not define any structural and functional interrelationships between the computer program and other claimed elements of a computer, which permit the computer program's functionality to be realized.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC §103
6. 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.
7. Claims 1, 4, 6-9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weissman et al. (U.S PAT. 10,056,941, hereinafter “Weissman”) in view of Abedini et al. (U.S PAT. 12,119971, hereinafter “Abedini”).
Consider claim 1, Weissman teaches an access point of a cell-free distributed massive MIMO network, wherein it comprises at least:
- a determination module configured to determine an information item representative of signal distortion caused by the own hardware impairments of said access point (col. 12, line 62 through col. 13, line 13),
- a transmission module configured to transmit, a plurality of access points in series ordered, said information item representative of said signal distortion to another access point, or to the central unit, directly following it (col. 16, lines 21-41);
- a reception module configured to receive, said information item representative of a signal distortion caused by the hardware impairments of an access point directly preceding it, and to take into account the information item so as to determine the local precoding filters of said access point configured to cancel said signal distortion caused by the hardware impairments of said access point preceding it (col. 14, lines 12-28 i.e., The initial beamformed signals (Z1.sup.(i), ZN.sup.(i), etc.) for each transmit path may be provided to transmit path modeling circuitry 652a-652n and channel modeling circuitry 653 to model the distorted signal, Q.sup.(i), as received the receiver device).
Weissman does not explicitly show that transmit, via a fronthaul link comprising a plurality of access points in series ordered along a predetermined direction of travel of said fronthaul link to the central unit of a base station; and receive, via said fronthaul link, said information item representative of a signal distortion caused by the hardware impairments of an access point directly preceding it within said fronthaul link.
In the same field of endeavor, Abedini teaches transmit, via a fronthaul link comprising a plurality of access points in series ordered along a predetermined direction of travel of said fronthaul link to the central unit of a base station (col. 30, lines 7-26); and receive, via said fronthaul link, said information item representative of a signal distortion caused by the hardware impairments of an access point directly preceding it within said fronthaul link (col. 17, lines 11-30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention was made to use, transmit, via a fronthaul link comprising a plurality of access points in series ordered along a predetermined direction of travel of said fronthaul link to the central unit of a base station; and receive, via said fronthaul link, said information item representative of a signal distortion caused by the hardware impairments of an access point directly preceding it within said fronthaul link, as taught by Abedini, in order to provide wireless communication and to techniques and apparatuses for determining and/or using a numerology for communications with a forwarding node.
Consider claim 4, Weissman further teaches wherein it comprises a plurality of simultaneously active transmitters, said information item representative of a signal distortion caused by the own hardware impairments corresponding to the concatenation of the signal distortion caused by the own hardware impairments of each of the transmitters of said plurality (col. 12, line 62 through col. 13, line 13).
Consider claim 6, Weissman in view of Abedini disclose the claimed invention except for each local precoding filter is a MRT, FZF or RZF filter. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was file to include each local precoding filter is a MRT, FZF or RZF filter since the examiner takes Official Notice of the equivalence of each local precoding filter is a MRT, FZF or RZF filter for their use in the art and the selection of any known equivalents would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Consider claim 7, Abedini further teaches a central unit of a base station of a cell-free distributed massive MIMO network, said central unit being associated with at least one fronthaul link comprising a plurality of access points in series, according to claim 1, and ordered along a predetermined direction of travel of said fronthaul link to said central unit, wherein said central unit of a base station comprises at least one reception module configured to receive, via said fronthaul link, an information item representative of signal distortion caused by hardware impairments of an access point directly preceding it within said fronthaul link, and to take into account said information item so as to determine the local precoding filters of said central unit configured to cancel said signal distortion caused by the hardware impairments of said access point preceding it (col. 16, lines 21-41).
Consider claim 8, Weissman further teaches a cell-free, distributed bulk MIMO network comprising at least one fronthaul link, wherein said at least one fronthaul link comprises a plurality of access points in series, according to claim 1, and ordered along a predetermined direction of travel of said fronthaul link (col. 16, lines 21-41).
Consider claim 9, the subject-matter of independent claim 9 relates to a method of limiting the signal distortion caused by hardware impairments of a plurality of access points of a fronthaul link of a cell-free distributed massive MIMO network with features fully corresponding to the characteristics of claim 1. Therefore, the same argumentation presented in relation to claim 1 is, mutatis mutandis, of application to claim 9.
Consider claim 11, the subject-matter of claim 11 relates to a computer program including software instructions which, when executed by a computer, implement a method of limiting signal distortion caused by hardware impairments of a plurality of access points of a fronthaul link of a cell-free distributed massive MIMO network with features fully corresponding to the characteristics of claim 9. Therefore, the same argumentation presented in relation to claim 9 is, mutatis mutandis, of application to claim 11.
Allowable Subject Matter
8. Claims 2-3, 5 and 10 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.
Consider claim 2, the prior arts made of record, alone or in combination, fail to clearly teach or fairly suggest wherein to determine said information item representative of signal distortion, said access point determination module is configured to:
- obtain a local estimation of the propagation channel between each of the transmitters thereof and each user terminal within the range thereof within said cell- free distributed massive MIMO network,
- determine the power allocated to each data signal suitable for being transmitted between that access point and each user terminal within the range thereof within said cell-free distributed massive MIMO network,
- precode each data signal suitable for being transmitted between each of the transmitters thereof and each user terminal within the range thereof within said cell- free distributed massive MIMO network based on said associated local estimation and on said allocated power;
- transmit each precoded signal as input to a hardware model of the transmission chain of the associated transmitter thereof;
- determine said information item representative of the signal distortion caused by the own hardware impairments of the transmitter, by comparing the output of said hardware model and said input precoded signal, in combination with other limitations, as specified in the independent claim 1, and further limitations of their respective dependent claims 3 and 5.
Consider claim 10, the prior arts made of record, alone or in combination, fail to clearly teach or fairly suggest wherein said determination of an information item representative of signal distortion caused by said own hardware impairments of said access point comprises:
- obtaining a local estimate of the propagation channel between each of the transmitters thereof and each user terminal within the range thereof within the said cell-free distributed massive MIMO network,
- the determination of the power allocated to each data signal suitable for being transmitted between said access point and each user terminal within the range thereof within said cell-free distributed massive MIMO network,
- the precoding of each data signal suitable for being transmitted between each of the transmitters thereof and each user terminal within the range thereof within said cell-free distributed massive MIMO network based on said associated local estimation and allocated power;
- the transmission of each precoded signal at the input of a hardware model of the transmission chain of the associated transmitter thereof;
- the determination of said information item representative of the signal distortion caused by the own hardware impairments of the transmitter, by comparing the output of said hardware model and said input precoded signal, in combination with other limitations, as specified in the independent claims 9.
Conclusion
9. Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Mail Stop_________ (Explanation, e.g., Amendment or After-final, etc.)
Commissioner for Patents
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Facsimile responses should be faxed to:
(571) 273-8300
Hand-delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22313
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tuan H. Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-8329. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00Am - 5:00Pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Pan Yuwen can be reached on (571) 272-7855. 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).
/TUAN H NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2649
Prosecution Insights