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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 18, 2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 7, 14-16, 23-25, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoo et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2021273707 A1 (hereinafter Yoo).
Regarding Claim 1, Yoo discloses an apparatus for wireless communication (e.g., FIGS. 1, 2: UE 120), comprising: a transceiver; a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the memory and the transceiver (e.g., FIG. 2, ¶ [0049] controller-processor 280, memory 282, transmit and receive processors, antennas), wherein the one or more processors are configured to: encode, based on an estimated channel matrix of a reference signal received from a base station, channel state information (CSI) using a machine learning (ML)-based CSI encoder (e.g., ¶ [0050] UE obtains CSI instance for a channel, determines a neural network model including a CSI encoder and a CSI decoder, train the model based at least in part on encoding the CSI instance into encoded CSI; e.g., ¶ [0051] UE encodes a first CSI instance for a channel estimate of a channel to a base station into first encoded CSI, based at least in part on one or more encoder weights that correspond to a neural network model associated with a CSI encoder and a CSI decoder; ¶ [0056] CSI feedback may include a precoding matrix indicator (PMI) that corresponds to the precoding matrix; ¶ [0059] CSI includes a downlink channel estimate and may include interference information for interference at the UE. CSI is conveyed from the UE to a base station via CSI feedback. The base station relies on the CSI conveyed via the CSI feedback to perform downlink scheduling and beamforming, among other operations; ¶ [0062] According to various aspects described herein, machine learning, such as training a neural network model, may be used to better encode CSI to achieve lower CSI feedback overhead, higher CSI accuracy, and/or better adaptability to different antenna structures and radio frequency environments [to clarify, it would have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to interpret that channel estimates, precoding matrices would be among data sets used in a training model, as may also be seen in prior art example Saber et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20230131694 (e.g., ¶ [0151])); transmit, to the base station, an output of the ML-based CSI encoder and assistance information related to the estimated channel matrix (e.g., ¶ [0051]-[0053] base station 110 receives, form UE 120, encoded CSI instance for a channel, based at least in part on one or more encoder weights that correspond to a trained [i.e., machine learned] neural network model associated with a CSI encoder and a CSI decoder); and receive, from the base station, a scheduling grant for a downlink channel having at least one parameter that is based on the output of the ML-based CSI encoder and the assistance information (e.g., ¶ [0049] scheduler 246 of base station 210 may schedule UEs for data transmission on the downlink and/or uplink [interpreting the estimated channel matrix as assistance information, along with encoded CSI])).
Regarding Claim 2, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 1.
Yoo discloses wherein the assistance information includes one or more of a rank indicator (RI) or a channel quality indicator (CQI) (e.g., ¶ [0057] CSI feedback may include Type-II feedback. As shown in FIG. 3, Type-II CSI feedback may include precoding vectors for different ranks; e.g., ¶ [0060] For example, Type-II CSI feedback in NR is based on a quantized representation of the downlink channel estimate into a rank indicator (RI), a selection of oversampled DFT-based beams, and heavily quantized wideband and subband amplitude and phase values).
Regarding Claim 3, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 2.
Yoo discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to encode the CSI based on one or more of the RI or the CQI (e.g., ¶ [0057] CSI feedback may include Type-II feedback. As shown in FIG. 3, Type-II CSI feedback may include precoding vectors for different ranks; e.g., ¶ [0060] For example, Type-II CSI feedback in NR is based on a quantized representation of the downlink channel estimate into a rank indicator (RI), a selection of oversampled DFT-based beams, and heavily quantized wideband and subband amplitude and phase values; e.g., ¶ [0088] In some aspects, a reconstructed DL channel Ĥ may faithfully reflect the DL channel H, and this may be called explicit feedback. In some aspects, Ĥ may capture only that information required for the gNB to derive rank and precoding. CQI may be fed back separately. CSI feedback may be expressed as m(t), or as n(t) in a scenario of temporal encoding [t would also have bene obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to associate CSI with a rank indicator and/or CQI, as may be seen in example Gao et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190068303 A1 (e.g., ¶ [0019] For CSI feedback, LTE has adopted an implicit CSI mechanism where a wireless device feedback of the downlink channel state information is in terms of a transmission rank indicator (RI), a precoder matrix indicator (PMI), and one or two channel quality indicator(s) (CQI)]).
Regarding Claim 7, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 2.
Yoo discloses wherein the output from the ML-based CSI encoder is one or more of an indication of a precoding matrix, or an indication of a channel representation (e.g., ¶ [0056] CSI feedback may include a precoding matrix indicator (PMI) that corresponds to the precoding matrix)
Regarding Claim 14, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 1.
Yoo discloses wherein the output of the ML-based CSI encoder is one or more of an indication of a precoding matrix, or an indication of a channel representation (e.g., ¶ [0056] CSI feedback may include a precoding matrix indicator (PMI) that corresponds to the precoding matrix)
Regarding Claim 15, Yoo discloses an apparatus for wireless communication (e.g., FIGS. 1, 2: base station 110), comprising: a transceiver; a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors communicatively coupled with the memory and the transceiver (e.g., FIG. 2, ¶ [0049] controller-processor 240, memory 242, transmit and receive processors, antennas), wherein the one or more processors are configured to: receive, from a user equipment (UE), information, and transmit, to the UE, information that are functionally similar to the information transmitted by UE and received by the UE apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 1 shall be applied to claim 15.
Regarding Claim 16, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 15.
The functional limitations of Claim 15 are similar to claim 2. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 2 shall be applied to claim 15.
Regarding Claim 23, the claim is directed to a method for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), comprising operations that are functionally similar to those performed by the apparatus of claim 1. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 1 shall be applied to claim 23.
Regarding Claim 24, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 23.
The functional limitations of Claim 24 are similar to claim 2. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 2 shall be applied to claim 24.
Regarding Claim 25, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 24.
The functional limitations of Claim 25 are similar to claim 3. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 3 shall be applied to claim 25.
Regarding Claim 29, the claim is directed to a method for wireless communication at a base station, comprising operations that are functionally similar to those performed by the apparatus of claim 15. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 15 shall be applied to claim 23.
Regarding Claim 30, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 29.
The functional limitations of Claim 30 are similar to claim 2. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 2 shall be applied to claim 30.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 4 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Lu et al, European Patent Application Publication No. EP 3737009 A1 (hereinafter Lu).
Regarding Claim 4, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 2.
Yoo does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: obtain a singular value decomposition (SVD) precoder based on the estimated channel matrix; and compute the RI based on the estimated channel matrix, the SVD precoder, and one or more error values.
Lu discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: obtain a singular value decomposition (SVD) precoder based on the estimated channel matrix; and compute the RI based on the estimated channel matrix, the SVD precoder, and one or more error values (e.g., ¶ [0110] Optionally, a precoding matrix at an f.sup.th frequency domain granularity may be transmit-end eigenvectors of a downlink channel matrix H.sub.f from the second communications apparatus to the first communications apparatus at the frequency domain granularity, that is, RI eigenvectors obtained by performing eigenvalue decomposition on H.sub.f.sup.HH.sub.f, where f=1, ..., F. Optionally, the precoding matrix at the f.sup.th frequency domain granularity may be obtained by transforming the transmit-end eigenvectors of the downlink channel matrix H.sub.f from the second communications apparatus to the first communications apparatus at the frequency domain granularity. For example, the precoding matrix at the frequency domain granularity is obtained based on a plurality of transmit-end eigenvectors of the first communications apparatuses (the precoding matrix may be obtained based on a minimum mean square error criterion, a zero forcing criterion, or another criterion). F is determined based on a quantity of frequency domain granularities of CSI feedback bandwidth of a first communications device and a second communications device. To represent R eigenvectors on an f.sup.th RB, the first communications apparatus first selects L beam vectors b.sub.k0 ...... b.sub.kL-1 to form the W.sub.1 matrix. The L beam vectors may be orthogonal beam vectors, or may alternatively be non-orthogonal beam vectors. Therefore, the PMI 1 is used to indicate the L beam vectors b.sub.k0 ...... b.sub.kL-1 selected by the first communications apparatus. Selection of the L beams is the same for all frequency domain granularities in the CSI feedback bandwidth, and is also the same for all RI eigenvectors).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of CSI encoded based on an estimated channel matrix and assistance information based on the CSI, as disclosed by Yoo, with the disclosure of singular value decomposition (SVD) precoding based on the estimated channel matrix and rank indication based on the estimated channel matrix, the SVD precoder, and one or more error values, as disclosed by Lu. The motivation to combine would have been to support precoding matrix index reporting (Lu: e.g., ¶ [0001]).
Regarding Claim 26, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 24.
The functional limitations of Claim 26 are similar to claim 4. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 4 shall be applied to claim 26.
Claims 5, 17 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Lu, in further view of Goto et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20210160917 A1 (hereinafter Goto).
Regarding Claim 5, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 2.
Yoo does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive, from the base station in radio resource control (RRC) signaling or dynamic signaling, an indication of the one or more error values.
Goto discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to receive, from the base station in radio resource control (RRC) signaling or dynamic signaling, an indication of the one or more error values (e.g., ¶ [0039] The downlink channel state information includes a Rank Indicator (RI) indicating a preferable spatial multiplexing order (the number of layers), a Precoding Matrix Indicator (PMI) indicating a preferable precoder, a Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) designating a preferable transmission rate, and the like… terminal apparatus may perform CSI feedback for each target error rate (transport block error rate) configured by the higher layer (e.g., setup through RRC signaling from the base station), or may perform CSI feedback for a target error rate of multiple target error rates configured by the higher layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of CSI encoded based on an estimated channel matrix and assistance information based on the CSI, as disclosed by Yoo, with the disclosure of providing a signal-related or communication-related error value via higher layer signaling, as disclosed by Goto. The motivation to combine would have been to support data transmission priority (Goto: e.g., ¶ [0011]).
Regarding Claim 17, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 16.
Yoo does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit, to the UE in radio resource control (RRC) signaling or dynamic signaling, an indication of error values for computing the RI.
Goto discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to transmit, to the UE in radio resource control (RRC) signaling or dynamic signaling, an indication of error values for computing the RI (e.g., ¶ [0039] The downlink channel state information includes a Rank Indicator (RI) indicating a preferable spatial multiplexing order (the number of layers), a Precoding Matrix Indicator (PMI) indicating a preferable precoder, a Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) designating a preferable transmission rate, and the like… terminal apparatus may perform CSI feedback for each target error rate (transport block error rate) configured by the higher layer (e.g., setup through RRC signaling from the base station), or may perform CSI feedback for a target error rate of multiple target error rates configured by the higher layer).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of CSI encoded based on an estimated channel matrix and assistance information based on the CSI, as disclosed by Yoo, with the disclosure of providing a signal-related or communication-related error value via higher layer signaling, as disclosed by Goto. The motivation to combine would have been to support data transmission priority (Goto: e.g., ¶ [0011]).
Regarding Claim 27, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the method of claim 26.
The functional limitations of Claim 27 are similar to claim 5. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 5 shall be applied to claim 27.
Claims 8, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Park et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20150358060 A1 (hereinafter Park).
Regarding Claim 8, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 1.
Yoo discloses that CSI includes a downlink channel estimate and may include interference information for interference at the UE (e.g., ¶ 0059]).
Yoo does not expressly disclose wherein the assistance information includes per-layer signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (SINR) values.
Park discloses wherein the assistance information includes per-layer signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (SINR) values (e.g., ¶ [0189] a reception signal-to-interference plus noise ratio (SINR) may be calculated per layer (or per rank) in additional consideration of receiver beamforming assumptions (e.g., minimum mean square error (MMSE) and MMSE-interference rejection combiner (IRC)) of the UE; e.g., ¶ [0192] CQI value determined based on the… SINR value of the layers… may be calculated/reported).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of CSI encoded based on an estimated channel matrix and assistance information based on the CSI, as disclosed by Yoo, with the disclosure of reporting per-layer signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (SINR) values, as disclosed by Park. The motivation to combine would have been to support reporting CSI for beamforming (Park: e.g., ¶ [0001]).
Regarding Claim 19, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 15.
The functional limitations of Claim 19 are similar to claim 8. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 8 shall be applied to claim 19.
Regarding Claim 20, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 19.
Yoo does not expressly disclose to compute, based on the per-layer SINR values, one or more of a rank indicator (RI) or a channel quality indicator (CQI), wherein the at least one parameter is generated based on the RI or the CQI.
Park discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to compute, based on the per-layer SINR values, one or more of a rank indicator (RI) or a channel quality indicator (CQI), wherein the at least one parameter is generated based on the RI or the CQI (e.g., ¶ [0189] a reception signal-to-interference plus noise ratio (SINR) may be calculated per layer (or per rank) in additional consideration of receiver beamforming assumptions (e.g., minimum mean square error (MMSE) and MMSE-interference rejection combiner (IRC)) of the UE; e.g., ¶ [0192] CQI value determined based on the… SINR value of the layers… may be calculated/reported).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of CSI encoded based on an estimated channel matrix and assistance information based on the CSI, as disclosed by Yoo, with the disclosure of reporting per-layer signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (SINR) values, as disclosed by Park. The motivation to combine would have been to support reporting CSI for beamforming (Park: e.g., ¶ [0001]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Park, in further view of Noh et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20190082435 A1 (hereinafter Noh).
Regarding Claim 9, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 8.
Yoo does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors are configured to encode the CSI based on a maximum rank or a configured rank.
Noh discloses wherein the one or more processors are configured to encode the CSI based on a maximum rank or a configured rank (e.g., ¶ [0136] Referring to FIG. 14, elements related to CSI reporting, such as a CRI/RI 1420, a PMI 1424, a CQI 1422, and the like are encoded… The number of CSI-RS ports included in a CSI-RS resource indicated by a CRI reported by a terminal is changed, and thus, the maximum allowed rank is changed).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of CSI encoded based on an estimated channel matrix and assistance information based on the CSI, as disclosed by Yoo in view of Park, with the disclosure of encoding the CSI based on a maximum rank or a configured rank, as disclosed by Noh. The motivation to combine would have been to support reporting CSI (Noh: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Park, in further view of Froberg Olsson et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20180302142 A1 (hereinafter Olsson).
Regarding Claim 11, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 8.
Yoo does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to compute the per-layer SINR values based on singular values of the estimated channel matrix.
Olsson discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to compute the per-layer SINR values based on singular values of the estimated channel matrix (e.g., ¶ [0010] To determine the SINR for layer l for a channel matrix H and interference and noise covariance matrix Q when using the precoder P, the following computations may be carried out at the wireless device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of CSI encoded based on an estimated channel matrix and assistance information based on the CSI, as disclosed by Yoo in view of Park, with the disclosure of computing the per-layer SINR values based on singular values of the estimated channel matrix, as disclosed by Olsson. The motivation to combine would have been to support precoding control (Olsson: e.g., ¶ [0001]).
Claims 12 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Li et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 20200403667 A1 (hereinafter Li).
Regarding Claim 12, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 1.
Yoo does not expressly disclose wherein the assistance information includes one or more of a scaling corresponding to a mean signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (SINR), a covariance matrix of a noise-and-interference vector of the apparatus, diagonal components of the covariance matrix, a rank indicator (RI) or channel quality indicator (CQI) computed based on a singular value decomposition (SVD) precoder calculated from the estimated channel matrix, or per-layer SINR values computed based on the SVD precoder.
Li discloses wherein the assistance information includes one or more of a scaling corresponding to a mean signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (SINR), a covariance matrix of a noise-and-interference vector of the apparatus, diagonal components of the covariance matrix, a rank indicator (RI) or channel quality indicator (CQI) computed based on a singular value decomposition (SVD) precoder calculated from the estimated channel matrix, or per-layer SINR values computed based on the SVD precoder (e.g., ¶ [0090] The terminal device 102 feeds back the CSI to the network device 101, and the CSI fed back by the terminal device 102 includes one or more of a PIM, an RI, and a CQI; ¶ [0124] precoding matrix… may be transmit-end eigenvectors of a downlink channel matrix H.sub.f from the second communications apparatus to the first communications apparatus at the frequency domain granularity, that is, RI eigenvectors obtained by performing eigenvalue decomposition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of CSI encoded based on an estimated channel matrix and assistance information based on the CSI, as disclosed by Yoo, with the disclosure of assistance information including a rank indicator computed based on a SVD precoder, as disclosed by Li. The motivation to combine would have been to support precoding matrix index reporting (Li: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Regarding Claim 21, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 15.
The functional limitations of Claim 21 are similar to claim 12. Therefore, the reasoning used in the examination of claim 12 shall be applied to claim 21.
Claims 13 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoo in view of Li, in further view of Chang et al, U.S. Patent Application Publication No. US 20200007246 A1 (hereinafter Chang).
Regarding Claim 13, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 12.
Yoo does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate input for the ML-based CSI encoder by normalizing the estimated channel matrix of the reference signal.
Chang discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate input for the ML-based CSI encoder by normalizing the estimated channel matrix of the reference signal (e.g., ¶ [0064] In some aspects, the methods and devices provide a determination of the CSI in OFDM communications, including estimating a frequency selective interference noise covariance matrix for each PRB, obtaining a normalized channel matrix by weighing the channel matrix from the interference estimate, and determining a channel equivalent matrix by multiplying the available precoding matrices with the normalized channel matrix).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of CSI encoded based on an estimated channel matrix and assistance information based on the CSI, as disclosed by Yoo in view of Li, with the disclosure of normalizing the estimated channel matrix of the reference signal, as disclosed by Chang. The motivation to combine would have been to support reporting of CSI conditions (Chang: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Regarding Claim 22, Yoo discloses all the limitations of the apparatus of claim 21.
Yoo does not expressly disclose wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate, based on the encoded CSI, a normalized channel representation, wherein the at least one parameter is generated based on the normalized channel representation and the assistance information.
Chang discloses wherein the one or more processors are further configured to generate, based on the encoded CSI, a normalized channel representation, wherein the at least one parameter is generated based on the normalized channel representation and the assistance information (e.g., ¶ [0064] In some aspects, the methods and devices provide a determination of the CSI in OFDM communications, including estimating a frequency selective interference noise covariance matrix for each PRB, obtaining a normalized channel matrix by weighing the channel matrix from the interference estimate, and determining a channel equivalent matrix by multiplying the available precoding matrices with the normalized channel matrix).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the filing date to combine the disclosure of CSI encoded based on an estimated channel matrix and assistance information based on the CSI, as disclosed by Yoo in view of Li, with the disclosure of normalizing the estimated channel matrix of the reference signal, as disclosed by Chang. The motivation to combine would have been to support reporting of CSI conditions (Chang: e.g., ¶ [0002]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6, 10, 18 and 28 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.
Regarding Claim 6, dependent from claim 4, the prior art of record fails to disclose individually or in combination or render obvious the limitations wherein the one or more processors are further configured to compute the CQI based on the RI, the estimated channel matrix, the SVD precoder, and the one or more error values.
Regarding Claim 10, dependent from claim 8, the prior art of record fails to disclose individually or in combination or render obvious the limitation wherein the one or more processors are further configured to compute the per-layer SINR values based on a singular value decomposition (SVD) precoder calculated from the estimated channel matrix.
Regarding Claim 18, dependent from claim 17, the prior art of record fails to disclose individually or in combination or render obvious the limitation wherein the one or more processors are further configured to compute the error values based on first per-layer signal-to-interference-and-noise ratio (SINR) values based on a singular value decomposition (SVD) precoder and second per-layer SINR values based on a computed precoder computed for the UE.
Regarding Claim 28, dependent from claim 26, the prior art of record fails to disclose individually or in combination or render obvious the limitation further comprising computing the CQI based on the RI, the estimated channel matrix, the SVD precoder, and the one or more error values.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. References considered relevant to this application are listed in the attached "Notice of References Cited” (PTO-892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV whose telephone number is (571)272-0549. The examiner can normally be reached Monday--Friday (9-5).
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, Sujoy Kundu can be reached at (571) 272-8586. 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.
/VLADISLAV Y AGUREYEV/Examiner, Art Unit 2471