Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersson (US 20200395981) in view of Athley (US 20120326928), hereinafter Athley928.
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 1/18, Petersson teaches A wireless communication method, comprising:
determining, by a wireless communication device, at least one virtual antenna port using a plurality of physical antenna ports ([0047], “The terminal device 200 creates a virtual antenna port 520 for, and applied over, at least two of the physical antenna ports 250.”); and
communicating, by the wireless communication device with a base station, data using the at least one virtual antenna port ([0047 and Fig.4], “S108: The terminal device 200 transmits, in the virtual antenna port 520, as many uplink reference signals as there are physical antenna ports 250.”),
However, Petersson does not teach wherein determining the at least one virtual antenna port using the plurality of physical antenna ports comprises applying a polarization codebook to the plurality of physical antenna ports, the polarization codebook comprising a polarization matrix corresponding to a polarization type.
In an analogous art, Athley teaches wherein determining the at least one virtual antenna port using the plurality of physical antenna ports comprises applying a polarization codebook to the plurality of physical antenna ports, the polarization codebook ([0041], “using the transformation matrix 9 for transforming the antenna ports 5, 6, 7, 8 to at least a first set S1 of virtual antenna ports 10, 11.”) comprising a polarization matrix ([0041], “transformation matrix”) corresponding to a polarization type ([0043], “Although described for single polarized antenna elements ... The proposed transformation matrix is then applied on each polarization.” In other words, the transformation matrix may be for “single polarized antenna elements”, the single polarization can be either a vertical or horizontal, so the transformation matrix can be corresponded to either a vertical or horizontal polarization.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Bai to specify matrix as taught by Athley928. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to determine virtual antenna ports.
Claim(s) 2-3, 5 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersson in view of Athley928, and further in view of Rojanski (US 20200373681).
Regarding claim(s) 2/19, Rojanski teaches wherein the plurality of physical antenna ports comprises a first physical antenna port and a second physical antenna port ([0090], “a polarization of the antennas 111, 112 is the horizontal linear polarization and a polarization of the antennas 121, 122 is the vertical linear polarization.”);
the first antenna port has a first polarization ([0090], “a polarization of the antennas 111, 112 is the horizontal linear polarization.”);
the second antenna port has a second polarization ([0090], “a polarization of the antennas 121, 122 is the vertical linear polarization.”);
the at least one virtual antenna port comprises a first virtual antenna port ([0090], “a desired polarization of the virtual antennas 161, 162, 163 and 164 can be a circular polarization.”);
the first virtual antenna port has a first synthesized polarization ([0090], “a desired polarization of the virtual antennas 161, 162, 163 and 164 can be a circular polarization.”); and
the first polarization, the second polarization, and the first synthesized polarization are different ([0090], horizontal, vertical and circular polarizations are different.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Petersson to specify different polarizations as taught by Rojanski. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to avoid interference.
Regarding claim(s) 3/20, Rojanski teaches wherein the first polarization comprises vertical linear polarization; the second polarization comprises horizontal linear polarization ([0090], “a polarization of the antennas 111, 112 is the horizontal linear polarization and a polarization of the antennas 121, 122 is the vertical linear polarization.”); and the first synthesized polarization comprises one of a circular polarization ([0090], “a desired polarization of the virtual antennas 161, 162, 163 and 164 can be a circular polarization.”) or a cross polarization.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Petersson to specify different polarizations as taught by Rojanski. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to avoid interference.
Regarding claim(s) 5, Rojanski teaches wherein applying the polarization codebook comprises obtaining at least one of a circular polarization or a cross polarization for the at least one virtual antenna port ([0090], “a desired polarization of the virtual antennas 161, 162, 163 and 164 can be a circular polarization.”) from orthogonal linear polarization of the plurality of physical antenna ports ([0090], “a polarization of the antennas 111, 112 is the horizontal linear polarization and a polarization of the antennas 121, 122 is the vertical linear polarization.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Petersson to specify different polarizations as taught by Rojanski. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to avoid interference.
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Petersson in view of Athley928, and further in view of Cao (WO2021098058).
Regarding claim(s) 7, Cao teaches receiving, by the wireless communication device from the base station([Page 32], “the BS 302 may indicate to a LHCP-only UE 304 with an extra TDD period to realize semi-static persistent (SSP) DL/UL grant.”), a polarization matrix subset according to polarization capabilities of the wireless communication device ([page 32], “the UE 304 may inform its polarization capability to the BS 302, which may include, for example, information indicating linear polarization, cross linear polarization, left hand circular polarization (LHCP), and/or right hand circular polarization (RHCP).”), the polarization matrix subset comprises at least one polarization type ([Page 32], “a LHCP-only”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Petersson to specify polarization type as taught by Cao. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to assign a polarization type according to UE’s capability.
Regarding claim(s) 8, Cao teaches wherein each of the at least one polarization type corresponds to a polarization matrix; and the wireless communication method further comprising receiving, by the wireless communication device from the base station, a polarization matrix index corresponding to a polarization matrix ([Page 28], “mapping rules between cell identifier/SSB index/beam index/BWP index and polarization.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Petersson to specify polarization type as taught by Cao. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to assign a polarization type according to UE’s capability.
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai (US 20210143894) in view of ATHLEY (US 20190103906), hereinafter Athley906, and further in view of Athley928.
With respect to independent claims:
Regarding claim(s) 16/17, Bai teaches A base station ([Fig.1 and 0035], “a base station 120”), comprising:
at least one processor configured to:
receive ([0035], “a base station 120 may communicate with a UE 110.”), via a receiver ([Fig.1 and 0035], “a base station 120”) from the wireless communication device ([0035], UE 110) with a base station ([0035], “a base station 120 may communicate with a UE 110.”), data using at least one virtual antenna port ([0035], “base stations 120 ... may communicate” with the UE 110 via “on one or more (physical or virtual) antenna ports.”),
However, Bai does not specifically disclose wherein the at least one virtual antenna port is determined using a plurality of physical antenna ports.
In an analogous art, Athley906 discloses wherein the at least one virtual antenna port is determined using a plurality of physical antenna ports ([0042], “The radio transceiver device 200a is configured to generate at least one virtual antenna port pair per set of beam patterns using the physical antenna elements 420, 430.” And [0031], “The radio transceiver device 200a could be ... radio base station ... user equipment.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Bai to specify determining a virtual port as taught by Athley906. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need for “dual-polarization beamforming.”
However, the combination of Baid and Athley906 does not teach wherein determining the at least one virtual antenna port using the plurality of physical antenna ports comprises applying a polarization codebook to the plurality of physical antenna ports, the polarization codebook comprising a polarization matrix corresponding to a polarization type.
In an analogous art, Athley928 teaches wherein determining the at least one virtual antenna port using the plurality of physical antenna ports comprises applying a polarization codebook to the plurality of physical antenna ports, the polarization codebook ([0041], “using the transformation matrix 9 for transforming the antenna ports 5, 6, 7, 8 to at least a first set S1 of virtual antenna ports 10, 11.”) comprising a polarization matrix ([0041], “transformation matrix”) corresponding to a polarization type ([0043], “Although described for single polarized antenna elements ... The proposed transformation matrix is then applied on each polarization.” In other words, the transformation matrix may be for “single polarized antenna elements”, the single polarization can be either a vertical or horizontal, so the transformation matrix can be corresponded to either a vertical or horizontal polarization.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claim invention to have modified the method of Bai to specify matrix as taught by Athley928. The motivation/suggestion would have been because there is a need to determine virtual antenna ports.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6 and 9-15 is/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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 06/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues (Remark page 9, last paragraph)
“However, paragraph [0041] merely states that a transformation matrix (the alleged
"polarization matrix") can transform antenna ports into a set of virtual antenna ports. Nowhere does Athley928 suggest that the transformation matrix corresponds to a polarization type, let alone disclose applying a polarization codebook including a polarization matrix corresponding to a polarization type to a plurality of physical antenna ports to determine at least one virtual antenna port. Indeed, Athley928 is devoid of any mention of a polarization type, let alone any suggestion of a polarization codebook including a polarization matrix corresponding to a polarization type.”
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Examiner updated mappings from Athley928, which discloses single polarization such as either vertical or horizontal polarization may be applied to transformation matrix.
Also, disclosure from Rojanski, which discloses inventive concept of applying horizontal linear polarization, vertical linear polarization and circular polarization.
Based on the foregoing reasoning, the rejections are sustained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ZHIREN QIN whose telephone number is (571)272-5444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9-6PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Derrick Ferris can be reached on 571-272-3123. 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.
/ZHIREN QIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights