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 .
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Drawings are accepted.
IDS is/are considered.
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.
Claim 7 is/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 7 recites, among other things, “wherein the determination of the future time is based on a worst case duration for executing a beam switch or antenna switch”.
The claim is indefinite by at least the recitation of “worst case duration”.
Specifically, the terminology “worst case” is subjective at best, as its meaning can change depends on the individual, without any defining metrics. The claim offers no further guidance on what criteria/parameters define a worst case scenario.
The ambiguity is further compounded by the entire phrase “worst case duration”, as a duration is a mere time period in and of itself, i.e. a neutral concept. It is unclear what a worst case duration means under BRI, even with context of the claims fully considered.
Therefore the scope of the claim is unclear.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
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.
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.
Claim 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because it is directed to a CRM without specifying the medium being non-transitory.
Claim 20 recites “A computer readable medium storing computer executable code for wireless communication by a user equipment (UE)”, as said, without specifying the medium being non-transitory. The Specification, while mentioning isolated examples of non-transitory computer readable medium, however does not specifically exclude signal or otherwise propagating media. As such, the claim 20 is not statutory and is rejected under this Section.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 7, 11, 12, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being unpatentable over Awoniyi-Oteri et al. (US 2023/0052328).
As to claim 1:
Awoniyi-Oteri discloses:
An apparatus for wireless communication, the apparatus comprising: memory storing computer executable code; and one or more processors configured to execute the computer executable code (See ¶0053, 0054, 0009, 0032, UE with processor/memory, can be wearable XR device)
and cause the apparatus to:
collect data using one or more sensors; (¶0118, 0050, 0059-0062, using sensors obtaining sensed data)
predict a future orientation and position of the apparatus based on the collected data; (¶0064-0068, based on a series of collected data, i.e. orientation information (3-DOF or 6-DOF position/orientation), generate a predicted position and orientation associated with a determined future time)
prepare a configuration of the apparatus for at least one of antenna switching or beam switching in response to the predicted future orientation and position of the apparatus; (See ¶0072-0076, 0078-0080, 0086, using the predicted future data corresponding to future orientation and position, the UE obtains a new beam configuration, i.e. beam layout information, beam orientation, beam width, TCI states, antenna configuration) to be deployed with performance suitable with the predicted )
and perform the at least one of the antenna switching or beam switching, using the prepared configuration of the apparatus, in response to a detected current orientation and position of the apparatus. (See ¶0082, 0091, 0097, the UE deploys the new changes to beam/antenna configuration mentioned above in response to analysis of the prediction)
As to claims 19 and 20:
Awoniyi-Oteri discloses:
A method and a computer readable medium storing computer executable code for wireless communication by a user equipment (UE), the computer executable code for executing said method for wireless communication by a user equipment (UE) (See ¶0053, 0054, 0009, 0032, UE with processor/memory, can be wearable XR device), the method comprising: collecting data using one or more sensors; (¶0118, 0050, 0059-0062, using sensors obtaining sensed data)
predicting a future orientation and position of the UE based on the collected data; (¶0064-0068, based on a series of collected data, i.e. orientation information (3-DOF or 6-DOF position/orientation), generate a predicted position and orientation associated with a determined future time)
preparing a configuration of the UE for at least one of antenna switching or beam switching in response to the predicted future orientation and position of the UE; (See ¶0072-0076, 0078-0080, 0086, using the predicted future data corresponding to future orientation and position, the UE obtains a new beam configuration, i.e. beam layout information, beam orientation, beam width, TCI states, antenna configuration) to be deployed with performance suitable with the predicted ) and performing the at least one of the antenna switching or beam switching, using the prepared configuration of the UE, in response to a detected current orientation and position of the UE. (See ¶0082, 0091, 0097, the UE deploys the new changes to beam/antenna configuration mentioned above in response to analysis of the prediction)
As to claim 2:
Awoniyi-Oteri discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises an XR head mounted display, smart glasses, or other wearable XR device. (See ¶0053, 0054, 0009, 0032, UE with processor/memory, can be wearable XR device)
As to claim 3:
Awoniyi-Oteri discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to collect head tracking data of a user associated with the apparatus. (¶0054, tracking head movement/rotation of a user wearing the head-mounted UE)
As to claim 5:
Awoniyi-Oteri discloses all limitations of claim 3, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to input the head tracking data of the user associated with the apparatus to a trained machine learning model to predict the future orientation and position of the apparatus. (See at least ¶0054, 57, 0067, 0070, inputting current orientation data to generate output including prediction of future location and orientation)
As to claim 7:
Awoniyi-Oteri discloses all limitations of claim 1, in the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to determine a future time for which to predict the future orientation and position of the apparatus, wherein the determination of the future time is based on a worst case duration for executing a beam switch or antenna switch. (See ¶0084, 0085, 0057, a worst case scenario can be defined as when a beam is predicted to no longer provide a threshold performance. The UE determines a plurality of future times, i.e. a first, second, and a third, each of which is determined with a new respective beam configuration to be deployed, i.e. a second time period is determined with the expectation the first future time’s configuration is no longer appropriate at the second time period)
As to claim 11:
Awoniyi-Oteri discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to: obtain a plurality of predefined antenna switching configurations associated with a plurality of apparatus orientations and positions; and prepare one of the plurality of predefined antenna switching configurations associated the predicted apparatus orientation and position. (See at least ¶0084-0085, a plurality of configurations associated with predicted orientation and positions at different time points in future and deploys the respective configuration at each of the predicted time)
As to claim 12:
Awoniyi-Oteri discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to prepare for the antenna switching before a measured signal quality meets an antenna switching trigger threshold. (See at least ¶0057, a beam configuration is expected to provide threshold performance. The UE proactive changes beam before the degradation below said level)
As to claim 17:
Awoniyi-Oteri discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to: obtain a plurality of predefined beam switching configurations associated with a plurality of apparatus orientations and positions; and prepare one of the plurality of predefined beam switching configurations associated the predicted apparatus orientation and position. (¶0071-0075, 0064, the UE determines a plurality predictions at different corresponding future times and determines predicted beam configuration for each of said predictions)
As to claim 18:
Awoniyi-Oteri discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to: predict a set of future candidate beams based on the predicted future orientation and position of the apparatus; and prioritize measurements on the predicted set of future candidate beams. (¶0072-0076, a plurality of beams are targeted for performance measurements at the predicted time/orientation. The UE measures their respective performances in timely manner so as to determine the appropriate configuration with best performance)
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.
Claim(s) 8-10, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awoniyi-Oteri et al. (US 2023/0052328) in view of Mammoser et al. (US 2016/0315676).
As to claim 15:
Awoniyi-Oteri discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to: periodically determine the current orientation and position of the apparatus; (See ¶0054, UE keeps the network updated of its orientation information periodically, i.e. the information is periodically tracked and transmitted)
identify, based on the current orientation and position of the apparatus, one or more TCI state, i.e. configuration by each of one or more antennas of the apparatus (See ¶0084-0085, identify a plurality of TCI state configuration for antennas of the UE); and in response to identification of the predicted future orientation of the apparatus falls within a different sector than the one or more sectors, (See ¶0055, “the movement or rotation of the user's head, and therefore the HMD, may cause the beams of the HMD to become unaligned with the beams of the base station”, i.e. falling into a different sector. See ¶0072-0076, 0078-0080, 0086, using the predicted future data corresponding to future orientation and position, the UE obtains a new beam configuration (i.e. different from current one), i.e. beam layout information, beam orientation, beam width, TCI states, antenna configuration) to be deployed with performance suitable with the predicted )
prepare a radio frequency (RF) tune script for the beam switching (See ¶0048, operations/processes described of the UE are driven by executing software instructions/commands, “compiling, converting, and/or interpreting” the software instruction codes automatically, i.e. “script”. See ¶0050, 0091, 0010, the instruction script facilitate changing configuration of antenna set, i.e. beam switching, from current one to another as appropriate to maintain connection integrity, i.e. RF tuning)
Except Awoniyi-Oteri does not explicitly refers to each antenna TCI configurations as a sector.
However, as known in the art, per Mammoser, ¶0026, 0036 in a same field of beamforming, discloses an antenna patter/configuration are responsible for their respective sectors and may be assigned a corresponding sector ID, wherein each of the sectors are identified and evaluated to select a best antenna configuration for beamforming.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the identifying and evaluation of TCI state configuration of Awoniyi-Oteri can be regarded as evaluation of each sector in view of Mammoser. By assigning sector ID for each of configuration, this implementation advantageously enables the system to effectively distinct one configuration to another in term of spatial sense.
As to claim 16:
Awoniyi-Oteri in view of Mammoser discloses all limitations of claim 15, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to execute the RF tune scrip for the beam switching in response to a measured signal quality of candidate beam satisfying the beam switching threshold. (¶0038 of Mammoser, “wireless network device 100 may select the antenna configuration that results in the best quality (e.g., the best PHY rate) for receiving transmissions from the remote station”. Also Awoniyi-Oteri, ¶0057, “the UE may determine beam information associated with the predicted orientation. In some aspects, the beam information may indicate a performance associated with communicating via a beam while the UE is oriented in the predicted orientation. In some aspects, the beam information may indicate a beam that is expected to provide a threshold performance while the UE is oriented in the predicted orientation”)
As to claim 8:
Awoniyi-Oteri discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to: periodically determine the current orientation and position of the apparatus; (See ¶0054, UE keeps the network updated of its orientation information periodically, i.e. the information is periodically tracked and transmitted)
identify, based on the current orientation and position of the apparatus, one or more TCI state, i.e. configuration by each of one or more antennas of the apparatus (See ¶0084-0085, identify a plurality of TCI state configuration for antennas of the UE); and in response to identification of the predicted future orientation of the apparatus falls within a different sector than the one or more sectors, (See ¶0055, “the movement or rotation of the user's head, and therefore the HMD, may cause the beams of the HMD to become unaligned with the beams of the base station”, i.e. falling into a different sector. See ¶0072-0076, 0078-0080, 0086, using the predicted future data corresponding to future orientation and position, the UE obtains a new beam configuration (i.e. different from current one), i.e. beam layout information, beam orientation, beam width, TCI states, antenna configuration) to be deployed with performance suitable with the predicted )
prepare a radio frequency (RF) tune script for the antenna switching. (See ¶0045, a plurality of antennas in the array. See ¶0055, “the movement or rotation of the user's head, and therefore the HMD, may cause the beams of the HMD to become unaligned with the beams of the base station”, See ¶0050, 0091, 0010, the instruction script facilitate changing configuration of antenna set, i.e. beam switching, from current one to another as appropriate to maintain connection integrity, i.e. RF tuning)
Except Awoniyi-Oteri does not explicitly refers to each antenna TCI configurations as a sector.
However, as known in the art, per Mammoser, ¶0026, 0036 in a same field of beamforming, discloses an antenna patter/configuration are responsible for their respective sectors and may be assigned a corresponding sector ID, wherein each of the sectors are identified and evaluated to select a best antenna configuration for beamforming.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the identifying and evaluation of TCI state configuration of Awoniyi-Oteri can be regarded as evaluation of each sector in view of Mammoser. By assigning sector ID for each of configuration, this implementation advantageously enables the system to effectively distinct one configuration to another in term of spatial sense.
As to claim 9:
Awoniyi-Oteri in view of Mammoser discloses all limitations of claim 8, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to execute the RF tune script for the antenna switching. (See ¶0048, operations/processes described of the UE are driven by executing software instructions/commands, “compiling, converting, and/or interpreting” the software instruction codes automatically, i.e. “script”. See ¶0050, 0091, 0010, the instruction script facilitate changing configuration of antenna set, i.e. beam switching, from current one to another as appropriate to maintain connection integrity, i.e. RF tuning)
As to claim 10:
Awoniyi-Oteri discloses all limitations of claim 1, wherein the UE is prepared to switch to a new antenna configuration in response to prediction as applied in claim 1, however is silent on the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to prepare for antenna switch diversity (ASDIV) switching based on the predicted future orientation of the apparatus.
Mammoser, in a related field of endeavor, also disclose a system for selecting the best antenna configuration, wherein the technique involves having the device to rapidly change antenna configurations in between a sequence of frames in order to choose the configuration with best performance, i.e. the technique is called antenna switch diversity switching. (¶0038)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system of Awoniyi-Oteri to incorporate the ASDIV technique as an option to select the appropriate antenna configuration. In view of Mammoser, ¶0038, this technique ensures the chosen antenna configuration results in the best PHY rate with try-and-true testing already done in the selection process.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awoniyi-Oteri et al. (US 2023/0052328) in view of Park (US 2020/0119775).
As to claim 4:
Awoniyi-Oteri discloses all limitations of claim 3, however is silent on the one or more sensors comprise at least one of an inertial measurement unit (IMU), an electromyogram (EMG), or a combination thereof.
Park, in a related field of multi-antenna transmission for a UE being a smart glass, discloses the UE determining positioning data with sensor being a inertial measurement unit. (See ¶0053, 0152)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the UE determining orientation data in Awoniyi-Oteri using sensor being the IMU sensor. Given that an IMU sensor is a combination of a gyroscope and accelerometer, See Awoniyi-Oteri at least ¶0123, sensor being gyroscope and accelerometer, one of ordinary skill in the art can contemplate the sensor is a IMU sensor as such device provides real time and high frequency data on angular movement and as such this is critical for detecting rapid and frequent head movements of the user.
Claim(s) 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awoniyi-Oteri et al. (US 2023/0052328) in view of Zou (US 2020/0029292).
As to claim 13:
Awoniyi-Oteri discloses all limitations of claim 1, however is silent on the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to estimate an initial transmit power of the apparatus associated with prepared antenna switching, wherein the estimation of the initial transmit power of the apparatus is before the performance of the antenna switching.
Note that Awoniyi-Oteri discloses obtaining various parameters beam configuration in existing codebook before antenna switching in ¶0074.
Zou, in related field of endeavor, discloses in ¶0088, 0073, a predictive beamforming in response to predicted motion of a UE, wherein an initial transmission power is obtained in the beam configuration pre-determined in historical database of the UE.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the system of Awoniyi-Oteri to incorporate the estimation of an initial transmit power of the apparatus associated with prepared antenna switching. This implementation allows for the UE to readily access transmission levels that are known to have predictable results in the past, thus reducing unnecessary guess work load from the UE.
As to claim 14:
Awoniyi-Oteri in view of Zhou discloses all limitations of claim 13, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to estimate the initial transmit power of the apparatus based on historical data of previous transmissions by the apparatus with the predicted orientation and position of the apparatus. (See Zhou ¶0088, 0073, historical data sets in the database having initial transmit power configurations, and is obtained based on predicted UE movement)
.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Awoniyi-Oteri et al. (US 2023/0052328) in view of Ghafarianzadeh et al. (US 2020/0307562).
As to claim 6:
Awoniyi-Oteri discloses all limitations of claim 5, wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to: set one or more future times for orientation and position prediction for the machine learning model; (See ¶0070, 0078, training the AI model using predicted orientations associated with future times)
Regarding:
optimize an orientation and position prediction error limit, for the machine learning model, based on the one or more future times to generate a final machine learning model; and predict the future orientation and position of the apparatus at the one or more future times using the final machine learning model.
Awoniyi-Oteri discloses updating/retraining the AI model using more orientation information until reaching a result that can be deployed at a UE per (¶0080, 0104-0109) for real-time usage to predict future orientation data of the UE.
Except that Awoniyi does not explicitly mention “optimize an orientation and position prediction error limit”
Ghafarianzadeh, in a related field of training location prediction AI model, discloses in at least ¶0136, 0151, a training process for an neural network model for spatial prediction, wherein the training optimize the prediction error limit by adjusting parameters/weights to minimize error.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing time of the invention that the training of AI model in Awoniyi-Oteri includes optimize an orientation and position prediction error limit. This implementation advantageously improves accuracy, especially in context of mobility status of the UE, which is vital for antenna adjustments through minimizing errors.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2019/0150133 - Apparatuses, systems, and methods for a wireless device to perform user equipment (UE) initiated beam management procedures with a base station or gNB. A wireless device in communication with a 5G base station may detect degradation in the pair of transmit and receive beams between the gNB and the device. The device may select a preferred beam management procedure and indicate the preference to the gNB.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to QUAN M HUA whose telephone number is (571)270-7232. The examiner can normally be reached 10:30-6:30.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/QUAN M HUA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights