DETAILED ACTION
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2 of [0083], “f1, f2, f4, and f3” should be change to “f1, f2, f4, and f5”.
In line 2 of [0084], “f1, f2, f4, and f3” should be change to “f1, f2, f4, and f5”.
In line 2 of [0150], “every RBs” should be changed to “every 2 RBs”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 12 and 20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In line 2, “transmitting” should be changed to “re-transmitting” as the TD-RS has already been transmitted in parent claims 5 and 13. This matches the “re-receiving” and “re-generating” steps of claims 12 and 20.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claim 1 recites:
based on a number of antenna panels, a number of antennas in each antenna panel, and spatial layers configurable using a plurality of antennas, calculating time delay values based on a carrier frequency;
generating first frequency-dependent phase shift matrices (PSMs) for respective subcarriers using the calculated time delay values; and
generating a first codebook compensating for a beam squint phenomenon of beams generated by the plurality of antennas by multiplying matrices of a basic codebook with the first PSMs.
The following illustrates the subject matter eligibility analysis performed on the claims according to MPEP § 2106 and § 2106.04.
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter?
Yes. Claim 1 is a process (method).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
Yes. Claim 1 is recites an abstract idea.
In particular, claim 1 recites 3 separate mathematical steps that can be performed manually/mentally.
Method step 1 above recites “calculating time delay value” based on the input of a number of antenna panels, a number of antennas per panel, spatial layers, and a carrier frequency.
Method step 2 uses the calculated time delay values from method step 1 to “generate first frequency-dependent phase shift matrices (PSMs)”.
Method step 3 “generates a first codebook…by multiplying matrices” of a basic codebook with the first PSMs generated in method step 2.
Given the input values above, a human can manually/mentally generate the first codebook as outlined in claim 1. For example, given a piece of paper with the input values (number of antenna panels, a number of antennas per panel, spatial layers, and a carrier frequency) written on it, a human could perform the steps of claim 1 using a pencil and that paper to obtain the first codebook.
Step 2A, Prong II: Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
No. The claim does not recite any additional elements.
Therefore, per the analysis in MPEP § 2106 and § 2106.04, the claim is not eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 2-4 do not introduce additional elements that either integrate the abstract idea/judicial exception into a practical application or that amount to significantly more than the abstract idea/judicial exception. That is, claim 2 merely modifies the description of the PSM, claim 3 further describes the basic codebook, and claim 4 specifies the structure of the antenna panels.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-20 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Regarding claims 5 and 13, the closest prior art of record is listed below and is also in the IDS filed 8/2/2024. The prior art of record does not disclose or render obvious the limitations of “receiving time delay values for respective subcarriers, which are respectively mapped to the spatial layers and the antenna panels, from the second communication node”, “generating second frequency-dependent second phase shift matrices (PSMs) based on the received time delay values”, and “generating a second codebook compensating for a beam squint phenomenon of beams generated by the plurality of antennas by multiplying matrices of a basic codebook with the second PSMs” in combination with all other claim limitations. Therefore, claims 5 and 13 are allowable over the prior art of record.
Claims 6-12 and 14-20 depend from one of the above claims and are thus similarly allowable over the prior art of record.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Li et al (US 2024/0195465) discloses a solution to the beam squint effect in wideband communications with multiple carriers.
Lee et al (US 2021/0344397) discloses a method for communicating in a multi antenna panel massive antenna system including measuring channel state information.
Cai et al (US 2019/0173537) discloses a method for mitigating beam squint in millimeter wave wireless communication systems.
Wang (US 2018/0131102) discloses a beam squint remediation apparatus.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert C Scheibel whose telephone number is (571)272-3169. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Hassan A Phillips can be reached at 571-272-3940. 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.
Robert C. Scheibel
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2467
/Robert C Scheibel/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467 June 10, 2026
Prosecution Insights