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 § 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 11 is 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the same supercell” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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, 21-23 and 31-33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kamiwatari et al. (US 2024/0421885 A1), hereinafter Kamiwatari.
Regarding claim 1, Kamiwatari discloses: (1) the central processing unit 10-fig.1 broadcasts an index of wide beams used by the APs 11 to transmit the reference signal and schedule information (first schedule information) relating to indexing timing as the schedule of the first beam measurement, see 0044; the first beam measurement of a time period 401-fig.4 from APs 11-fig.1 to UE, see 0045; (2) the feedback information (feedback report) includes, as parameters, identification information 1101-fig.11 of the UEs 20, identification information 1102 of the first APs 11, a beam index 1103 used in transmission of the reference signal with the highest received signal strength from among the reference signals from the first APs 11 (equivalent to the beam index corresponding to the first base station), and a highest received signal strength 1104 from among the reference signals received from the first APs 11, see 0047 (equivalent to determining a first measurement based on a first reference signal of a plurality of reference signals from a plurality of base stations and received at a cellular device, the first reference signal received at the cellular device from a first base station of the plurality of base stations using a beam associated with a beam index, the beam index corresponding to the first base station); (3) the central processing unit 10 determines in the time period 603 to measure the narrow beams from the APs 11 that transmitted a predetermined number of wide beams in order from greatest signal strength, which is a signal strength equal to or greater than a threshold, from among the wide beams with feedback in the time period 402 from the UEs 20-fig.1, see 0058, 0063. In other words, the greatest signal strength on the basis of the feedback information received from the UE in response to the first beam measurement satisfies a threshold (equivalent to determining whether the first measurement satisfies a threshold); (4) Next, in S703, the central processing unit 10 determines whether to transmit the reference signals using the narrow beams from the APs 11 on the basis of the first feedback information received from the UEs 20. For example, as described above, per AP 11, the central processing unit 10 may select a predetermined number of wide beams or less, for example, less than four predetermined UEs 20, in order of highest received signal strength of the first feedback information and transmit the reference signals using the narrow beams corresponding to the selected wide beams. Alternatively, less wide beams than a predetermined number may be selected in order of highest average value of the received signal strength of a plurality of first feedback information from the plurality of APs 11, see 0064 (equivalent to selecting the beam for communication between the cellular device and the first base station after determining that the first measurement satisfies the threshold; and configuring the cellular device using the beam index to facilitate communication between the cellular device and the first base station).
Regarding claim 21, in Kamiwatari, the wireless communication circuit 203-fig.2B is a wireless circuit for exchanging wireless signals with the APs 11 and is connected to one or more antennas. The UE 20 according to the present embodiment executes beam search processing to measure beams used in MIMO communication with the APs 11, see 0041.
Regarding claim 22, in Kamiwatari, the UE 20 according to the present embodiment executes beam search processing to measure beams used in MIMO communication with the APs 11, as described below. A plurality of beams with a low correlation and good signal quality are detected via beam search processing, and by transmitting and receiving data on streams allocated to the plurality of beams, see 0041.
Regarding claim 23, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Kamiwatari for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 31, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Kamiwatari for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The apparatus 10-fig.8 includes a memory 102 storing instruction, a processor 101 that, when executed, cause the processor to perform the claimed steps.
Regarding claim 32, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Kamiwatari for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The apparatus 10-fig.8 includes a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium, e.g. memory 102, a processor 101 that, when executed, cause the processor to perform the claimed steps.
Regarding claim 33, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Kamiwatari for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The system comprising an apparatus 10-fig.8 that includes a memory 102 storing instruction, a processor 101 that, when executed, cause the processor to perform the claimed steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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 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.
8. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiwatari, in view of Zhou et al. (US 2019/0053314 A1), hereinafter Zhou.
Regarding claim 2, Kamiwatari discloses all claimed limitations, except wherein the plurality of reference signals is representative of a plurality of synchronization signal blocks (SSBs), the plurality of SSBs including at least one of a primary synchronization signal (PSS) or a secondary synchronization signal (SSS).
Zhou from the same field of endeavor as Kamiwatari teaches wireless devices may perform uplink beam sweeps for UL direction to access a cell. In a single beam example, a base station may configure time-repetition within one synchronization signal (SS) block. This time-repetition may comprise, e.g., one or more of a primary synchronization signal (PSS), a secondary synchronization signal (SSS), and a physical broadcast channel (PBCH), see 0114.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a mechanism in which a SSB comprises one or more primary synchronization signal and a secondary synchronization signal as taught by Zhou into the system of Kamiwatari. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable the wireless device to identify from an SSB, an OFDM symbol index, a slot index in a radio frame, and a radio frame number in a single beam and multi beam operations supported in a New Radio system.
Regarding claim 3, In Zhou the plurality of reference signals may comprise at least one or more SSB, and the wireless device may detect at least one beam failure, and the base station may determine a type of beam failure recovery for the wireless device.
Regarding claim 4, Zhou teaches the second plurality of reference signals may comprise at least one or more synchronization signal blocks, demodulation reference signals of a physical broadcast channel, or channel state information reference signals, see 0145.
Regarding claim 5, in Zhou, a best beam, including but not limited to a best SS block beam, may be determined based on a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS), see 0120.
12. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiwatari, in view of Wang et al. (US 2020/0106502), hereinafter Wang.
Regarding claim 6, Kamiwatari teaches all claimed limitations, except determining the beam strength of the first reference signal based on received signal power associated with receiving the first reference signal at the cellular device.
Wang from the same field of endeavor as Kamiwatari teaches that based on the first reference signal, the UE device 102(1) sends a first measurement report 111 that is received by the network device 104, identifying a transmit beam of the respective transmit beams that has at least a first (e.g., the best) threshold signal strength, see 0035. By comparing the first RSRP (before receiver beam tuning) in the report 111 with the second RSRP (after receiver beam tuning) in the report 113, the network device 104 can determine the effectiveness of the receiver beam tuning that the UE 102(1) performed. The network device 104 can thus determine the worth of configuring more CSI-RS to assist UE's receiver beam tuning, that is, the network device 104 can set the density of CSI-RS based on the effectiveness of the receiver beam tuning that the UE performed, see 0036.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a mechanism in a manner taught by Wang into the system of Kamiwatari. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to prevent wireless network resources to be wasted by not having a UE repeatedly perform receive beam sweeping that can sometimes provide little or no benefit.
13. Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiwatari, in view of Garrett et al. (US 10,396,874), hereinafter Garrett.
Regarding claim 10, Kamiwatari discloses all claimed limitations, except configuring the first base station and the second base station to transmit duplicate signals to the cellular device.
Garrett from the same field of endeavor as Kamiwatari teaches the secondary base station 102B may concurrently initiate one or more beams in the direction of the user device 104A that transmit the same information signal that is being transmitted by the primary base station 102A to the user device 104A-fig.2, see col.8, lines 26-30.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a mechanism in which duplicate signal or same information signal being transmitted to the UE by the secondary and the primary base station as taught by Garrett into the system of Kamiwatari. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable the secondary base station steer nulls in the direction of the primary base station, and vice versa, so that once the UE establishes a connection with the secondary base station, the user device may terminate the beams in the direction of the primary base station, thereby terminating the connection with the primary base station.
Regarding claim 11, in Kamiwatari the AP 11A-fig.1 and the AP 11B are associated with a same supercell.
Regarding claim 12, in Kamiwatari the central processing unit 10-fig.1 can establish a supercell including the AP 11A-fig.1 and the AP 11B.
14. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiwatari, in view of Garrett, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2021/0051754), hereinafter Zhou.
Regarding claim 14, Kamiwatari and Garrett disclose all claimed limitations, except transmitting wireless data from the cellular device to the first base station to cause a distributed unit in communication with the first base station to generate first processed wireless data by processing the wireless data; and transmitting the wireless data from the cellular device to the second base station to cause the distributed unit in communication with the second base station to generate second processed wireless data by processing the wireless data.
Zhou from the same field of endeavor as Kamiwatari teaches a gNB, such as gNBs 160 in FIG. 1B, may be split in two parts: a central unit (gNB-CU), and one or more distributed units (gNB-DU). A gNB-CU may be coupled to one or more gNB-DUs using an F1 interface, see 0110, wherein the wireless data from UE 156A can cause the DU from the gNB 160A to generate first processed wireless data by processing the wireless data, and the wireless data from UE 156B can cause the DU from the gNB 160B to generate first processed wireless data by processing the wireless data.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ gNBs including DUs to process wireless data respectively from the UEs in the manner taught by Zhou into the combined system of Kamiwatari-Garrett. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable the cells of the base stations, e.g. gNBs, to provide radio coverage to the UE over a wide geographic area to support wireless device mobility
15. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiwatari, in view of Kim et al. (US 2013/0039345), hereinafter Kim.
Regarding claim 17, Kamiwatari teaches all claimed limitations, except wherein the plurality of base stations is to sequentially transmit the plurality of reference signals in a plurality of directions.
Kim from the same field of endeavor as Kamiwatari teaches a base station 300-fig.3 sequentially transmits a plurality of reference signals in corresponding transmission beam directions in order to determine which beam to use to transmit to terminal 310. Here, the reference signals are signals configured in a predetermined sequence, and may be denoted by a preamble, a midamble, a training signal, etc. The terminal 310 receives the reference signals transmitted in the different beam directions and measures a signal strength with respect to each reference signal, see 0046.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a base station that functions in the manner taught by Kim into the system of Kamiwatari. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable the terminal to compare the measured signal strengths and then selects a transmission beam having a strongest signal strength so that an optimal transmission beam is determined.
16. Claim 30 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kamiwatari, in view of Yang Roy (WO-2023148088-A1).
Regarding claim 30, Kamiwatari discloses all claimed limitations, except configuring the base station to operate in accordance with a Split Option 6 Open Radio Access Network Alliance architecture.
Rang Roy from the same field of wireless communication as Kamiwatari teaches: (1) an open radio access network Alliance (O-RAN) aims for interoperability and standardization of RAN elements including a unified interconnection standard for network functions from different vendors, see col. 1, line 11; (2) Fig . 2A is a block diagram of the radio access network controller 200 in the radio access network 100 comprising the distributed unit 210 , at least one radio unit 220 and at least one fronthaul connection 110 between the distributed unit 210 and the at least one radio unit 220, see col. 17, lines 17-21; (3) split options, e.g., option 6 split, etc., see col. 20, lines 14-24. In other words, Rang Roy teaches a base station to operate in accordance with a Split Option 6 Open Radio Access Network Alliance architecture.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a Split Option 6 Open Radio Access Network Alliance architecture taught by Rang Roy into the system of Kamiwatari. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to aim for interoperability and standardization of RAN elements including a unified interconnection standard for network functions from different vendors.
Allowable subject matter
17. Claims 7-9, 13, 15-16, 18-20 and 24-29 are rejected based on its dependency, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
18. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Islam (US 2018/0288737 A1) is cited, and considered pertinent to the instant specification.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUC C HO whose telephone number is (571)272-3147. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached on 571-270-1420 (Gary.mui@uspto.gov). 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DUC C HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights