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 Applicants’ communication filed on 04/12/2024. In virtue of this communication, claims 1-20 are currently pending in the instant application.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because fig. 5 shows the capabilities report going from network node to UE (see (fig. 5 (505). However, the capability report (i.e. reporting the capabilities of the UE) is sent from the UE to the network node (see instant par. 0101). Please change arrow direction.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “receive, from a network node, a power allocation capability for measuring one or more of a first reference signal over a first port having a first polarity or a second reference signal over a second port having a second polarity;… wherein the power allocation capability includes one of a shared power allocation capability for sharing a power across one or more ports or an individual power allocation capability for individually allocating power across the one or more ports.”
It is indefinite as to what the power allocation capability is. Instant par. 0091 recites “The power allocation capability may indicate a capability of the network node 110 to transmit the SSB via the two non-precoded ports at different polarizations.” Therefore, the power allocation capability seems to indicate that the network node is capable of transmitting SSB at different polarizations. First, It is unclear what the power allocation capability is actually sending to the UE. Second, it there does not seem to be any mention of the power capabilities in par. 0091 defining the term “power allocation capability” just that it tells the UE the base station is capable of sending SSB at different polarizations. Third it is unclear how the capabilities of the base station power are used “for measuring…” at the UE. The power allocation capability is being interpreted as a configuration for measuring at the UE. Please explain or amend.
Next the limitation “wherein the power allocation capability includes one of a shared power allocation capability for sharing a power across one or more ports or an individual power allocation capability for individually allocating power across the one or more ports” is indefinite as to which ports is allocating power. The base station ports or the UE ports. It seems it is the base station ports that are being allocated power. Note sending signals on different polarizations requires allocating power to ports of the base station so sending two different polarized signals seems to meet this limitation. Claims 9 and 17 are rejected for similar reasons and other claims due to dependence.
Claim 2 is also indefinite for similar reasons as it recites “receive a power allocation configuration in accordance with the power allocation capability; and measure the first reference signal and the second reference signal in accordance with the power allocation configuration.” As shown above, the power allocation capability is the capability of the base station so it is unclear how the sending of SSB at different polarizations (e.g. as defined in instant par. 0091) configures power allocation at the UE. Please explain or amend.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-17 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (US 2022/0174531 A1).
Regarding Claim 1 Zhu teaches the limitations "A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: a processing system that includes one or more processors and one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors, the processing system configured to cause the UE to: (see abstract and fig. 9);
receive, from a network node, a power allocation capability (see par. 0126 “the downlink reference signal may be an SSB and may include a beam index corresponding to a transmission occasion, such as a TTI, over which the base station 105-b transmits the downlink reference signal.”)
for measuring one or more of a first reference signal over a first port having a first polarity or a second reference signal over a second port having a second polarity; and (see fig. 4 (405, 410) and par. 0127 “The UE 115-b may independently select a first beam associated with a first polarization and a second beam associated with a second polarization for measurement of a downlink reference signal received from the base station 105-b.”);
receive, from the network node, the first reference signal via a first channel and the second reference signal via a second channel, (FIG. 4 (410 and 415) and par. 0128 “the UE 115-b may measure a receive strength of the downlink reference signal on both the first receive beam and the second receive beam.”);
wherein the power allocation capability includes one of a shared power allocation capability for sharing a power across one or more ports or an individual power allocation capability for individually allocating power across the one or more ports" (see par. 0126 “the downlink reference signal may be an SSB and may include a beam index corresponding to a transmission occasion, such as a TTI, over which the base station 105-b transmits the downlink reference signal.” Also par. 0125 “techniques for per-polarization beam scheduling for MIMO communication.” This informs the UE the base station is capable of power allocation across ports required for per polarization beamforming.
Claims 9 and 17 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 3 Zhu teaches the limitations "The UE of claim 1, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the UE to:
select a first beam pair for the first channel; and
select a second beam pair for the second channel, wherein each of the first beam pair and the second beam pair includes: one of a first transmission (Tx) beam or a second Tx beam; and one of a first reception (Rx) beam or a second Rx beam" (see abstract, par. 0043 “beam pairs” and fig. 10 “ a user equipment (UE) may transmit or receive a reference signal to or from a base station using a beam pair including a first beam associated with a first polarization and a second beam associated with a second polarization.”).
Claims 11 and 19 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 4 Zhu teaches the limitations "The UE of claim 3, wherein the first Tx beam and the first Rx beam have the first polarity, and wherein the second Tx beam and the second Rx beam have the second polarity" (see fig. 10 (1010)).
Claim 12 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 5 Zhu teaches the limitations "The UE of claim 3, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the UE to:
estimate, for the first beam pair, a first power value; estimate, for the second beam pair, a second power value; (see par. 0106 “the UE 115-a may determine that, for a downlink reference signal from the base station 105-a, the “a_H” beam and the “b_V” beam may each receive a relatively high power or RSRP (and, in some examples, may receive an equivalently high power or RSRP) and the UE 115-a may determine that, for the same downlink reference signal, the “a_V” beam and the “b_H” beam receive a relatively lower power or RSRP (such as, for example, at least more than 20 dB lower).”);
select a power allocation in accordance with the first power value and the second power value; and transmit the power allocation to the network node" (see fig. 10 (1020) where UE sends beam report which identifies beams based on RSRP).
Claims 13-14 and 20 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 6 Zhu teaches the limitations "The UE of claim 5, wherein, to cause the UE to estimate the first power value and estimating the second power value, the processing system is configured to cause the UE to estimate the first power value and the second power value in accordance with a 2x2 post-analog beamformed channel matrix observed at a digital or baseband frontend of a transceiver" (see par. 0084 “The UE 115 may provide feedback for beam selection, which may be a precoding matrix indicator (PMI) or codebook-based feedback (e.g., a multi-panel type codebook, a linear combination type codebook, a port selection type codebook). Although these techniques are described with reference to signals transmitted in one or more directions by a base station 105, a UE 115 may employ similar techniques for transmitting signals multiple times in different directions (e.g., for identifying a beam direction for subsequent transmission or reception by the UE 115) or for transmitting a signal in a single direction (e.g., for transmitting data to a receiving device).” Here, the matrix associated with the “beam pairs” is a 2 x 2 matrix (i.e. two tx ports and two rx ports).
Claim 15 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 7 Zhu teaches the limitations "The UE of claim 5, wherein the processing system is further configured to cause the UE to receive communications from the network node over one or more of the first port or the second port in accordance with the power allocation" (see fig. 11 (1125) and par. 0185).
Claim 16 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Regarding Claim 8 Zhu teaches the limitations "The UE of claim 1, wherein the first port and the second port are non-precoded" (see par. 0084 “The base station 105 may transmit a reference signal (e.g., a cell-specific reference signal (CRS), a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS)), which may be precoded or unprecoded.”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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 2, 10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu as applied to claims 1, 9 and 17, respectfully above, and further in view of Zhang et al. (US 2021/0377949 A1).
Regarding Claim 2 Zhu teaches the limitations "The UE of claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose “receive a power allocation configuration in accordance with the power allocation capability; (UE receives and measure the first reference signal and the second reference signal in accordance with the power allocation configuration.”
In the same field of endeavor Zhang discloses sending downlink control information including transmission configuration to the UE (see abstract, fig. 6d, 8 and par. 0107 and 0109).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure power configurations in accordance with base station capability as taught by Zhang in the system of Zhu, in order to improve quality (see par. 0087 of Zhang).
Claims 10 and 18 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above because the claims have similar limitations or have been addressed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID BILODEAU whose telephone number is (571)270-3192. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6:00am-4:00pm Eastern Standard Time. 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, Wesley Kim can be reached at (571) 272-7867. 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). 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.
/David Bilodeau/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648