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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-6, 8-11, 13-14, 16-17 and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hammond et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0250071).
Regarding claim 1. Hammond teaches a method (Hammond, the Abstract), comprising:
identifying, by a network test device, a beam pattern associated with a gNodeB (Hammond, Fig. 1, pp [42]: test system; Fig. 2, pp [47]-[48]: the test system 100 receives spatial streams and identifies which spatial stream is associated with which UE using a beam the UE associated with);
selecting, by the network test device and from the beam pattern, a first location, wherein the first location is associated with a first layer of a user equipment (UE) (Hammond, Fig. 4, pp [50]-[51], Fig. 6, pp [54] and Fig. 7, pp [55]: assigning spatial streams to different UEs which are located at different locations);
selecting, by the network test device and based on the beam pattern, a second location associated with a second layer of the UE, wherein the second location is selected from a set of candidate locations associated with the first layer (Hammond, Fig. 4, pp [50]-[51], Fig. 6, pp [54] and Fig. 7, pp [55]: assigning spatial streams to different UEs which are located at different locations);
creating, using the network test device, one or more multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) channels based on selected layers (Hammond, Fig. 8, Steps 800-814, pp [56]-[63]: receives UEs’ spatial positions, computes phase vectors from the positions, communicates the vectors to DUT, computes beam weight sets, scores for UEs positions, using beam weight sets and phase vectors, identifies using scores, associates spatial streams and UEs positions for emulation and processes data in spatial streams and responds to the DUT); and
using, by the network test device, the one or more MIMO channels to test a multiple user MIMO (MU-MIMO) system in a simulation or emulation environment (Hammond, Fig. 8, Steps 800-814, pp [56]-[63]: receives UEs’ spatial positions, computes phase vectors from the positions, communicates the vectors to DUT, computes beam weight sets, scores for UEs positions, using beam weight sets and phase vectors, identifies using scores, associates spatial streams and UEs positions for emulation and processes data in spatial streams and responds to the DUT).
Regarding claim 9. Hammond teaches a network test device (Hammond, the Abstract), comprising:
one or more components (Hammond, Figs. 1 and 2), configured to:
identify a beam pattern associated with a gNodeB (Hammond, Fig. 1, pp [42]: test system; Fig. 2, pp [47]-[48]: the test system 100 receives spatial streams and identifies which spatial stream is associated with which UE using a beam the UE associated with);
select, from the beam pattern, a first location, wherein the first location is associated with a first layer of a user equipment (UE) (Hammond, Fig. 4, pp [50]-[51], Fig. 6, pp [54] and Fig. 7, pp [55]: assigning spatial streams to different UEs which are located at different locations);
select, based on the beam pattern, a second location associated with a second layer of the UE, wherein the second location is selected from a set of candidate locations that correspond to the first layer (Hammond, Fig. 4, pp [50]-[51], Fig. 6, pp [54] and Fig. 7, pp [55]: assigning spatial streams to different UEs which are located at different locations);
create one or more multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) channels based on the first layer and the second layer (Hammond, Fig. 8, Steps 800-814, pp [56]-[63]: receives UEs’ spatial positions, computes phase vectors from the positions, communicates the vectors to DUT, computes beam weight sets, scores for UEs positions, using beam weight sets and phase vectors, identifies using scores, associates spatial streams and UEs positions for emulation and processes data in spatial streams and responds to the DUT); and
use the one or more MIMO channels to test a multiple user MIMO (MU-MIMO) system in a simulation or emulation environment (Hammond, Fig. 8, Steps 800-814, pp [56]-[63]: receives UEs’ spatial positions, computes phase vectors from the positions, communicates the vectors to DUT, computes beam weight sets, scores for UEs positions, using beam weight sets and phase vectors, identifies using scores, associates spatial streams and UEs positions for emulation and processes data in spatial streams and responds to the DUT).
Regarding claim 17. Hammond teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions (Hammond, the Abstract), the set of instructions comprising:
one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a network test device (Hammond, Fig. 1, processor 102), cause the network test device to:
identify a beam pattern associated with a gNodeB (Hammond, Fig. 1, pp [42]: test system; Fig. 2, pp [47]-[48]: the test system 100 receives spatial streams and identifies which spatial stream is associated with which UE using a beam the UE associated with);
select, from the beam pattern, a first location, wherein the first location is associated with a first layer of a user equipment (UE) (Hammond, Fig. 4, pp [50]-[51], Fig. 6, pp [54] and Fig. 7, pp [55]: assigning spatial streams to different UEs which are located at different locations);
select, based on the beam pattern, a second location associated with a second layer of the UE, wherein the second location is selected from a set of candidate locations that correspond to the first layer (Hammond, Fig. 4, pp [50]-[51], Fig. 6, pp [54] and Fig. 7, pp [55]: assigning spatial streams to different UEs which are located at different locations);
create one or more multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) channels based on the first layer and the second layer (Hammond, Fig. 8, Steps 800-814, pp [56]-[63]: receives UEs’ spatial positions, computes phase vectors from the positions, communicates the vectors to DUT, computes beam weight sets, scores for UEs positions, using beam weight sets and phase vectors, identifies using scores, associates spatial streams and UEs positions for emulation and processes data in spatial streams and responds to the DUT); and
use the one or more MIMO channels to test a multiple user MIMO (MU-MIMO) system in a simulation or emulation environment (Hammond, Fig. 8, Steps 800-814, pp [56]-[63]: receives UEs’ spatial positions, computes phase vectors from the positions, communicates the vectors to DUT, computes beam weight sets, scores for UEs positions, using beam weight sets and phase vectors, identifies using scores, associates spatial streams and UEs positions for emulation and processes data in spatial streams and responds to the DUT).
Regarding claim 2. Hammond teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the first location is an initial random location (Hammond, Fig. 4, pp [50]-[51], Fig. 6, pp [54] and Fig. 7, pp [55]).
Regarding claim 3. Hammond teaches the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the second location is based on one or more criteria, and wherein the one or more criteria include one or more of an average signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), a minimum SINR, or a channel condition number (Hammond, pp [2], [5], [39]-[40]).
Regarding claim 5. Hammond teaches the method of claim 1, wherein one or more layers are identified in a sequential manner for each of a plurality of UEs (Hammond, pp [5]; Fig. 4, pp [50]-[51], Fig. 6, pp [54] and Fig. 7, pp [55]).
Regarding claim 6. Hammond teaches the method of claim 1, wherein first layers are identified for each of a plurality of UEs, and second layers are subsequently identified for each of the plurality of UEs (Hammond, pp [5]; Fig. 4, pp [50]-[51], Fig. 6, pp [54] and Fig. 7, pp [55]).
Regarding claim 8. Hammond teaches the method of claim 1, wherein creating the one or more MIMO channels is based on a number of UEs, a polarization, and a number of layers per polarization for a given UE (Hammond, pp [5]; Fig. 4, pp [50]-[51], Fig. 6, pp [54] and Fig. 7, pp [55]).
Regarding claim 10. Hammond teaches the network test device of claim 9, wherein the first location is an initial random location (Hammond, Fig. 4, pp [50]-[51], Fig. 6, pp [54] and Fig. 7, pp [55]).
Regarding claim 11. Hammond teaches the network test device of claim 9, wherein the one or more components are configured to select the second location based on one or more criteria, and wherein the one or more criteria include one or more of an average signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), a minimum SINR, or a channel condition number (Hammond, pp [2], [5], [39]-[40]).
Regarding claim 13. Hammond teaches the network test device of claim 9, wherein the one or more components are configured to identify one or more layers in a sequential manner for each of a plurality of UEs (Hammond, pp [5]; Fig. 4, pp [50]-[51], Fig. 6, pp [54] and Fig. 7, pp [55]).
Regarding claim 14. Hammond teaches the network test device of claim 9, wherein the one or more components are configured to:
identify first layers for each of a plurality of UEs (Hammond, pp [5]; Fig. 4, pp [50]-[51], Fig. 6, pp [54] and Fig. 7, pp [55]); and
subsequently identify second layers for each of the plurality of UEs (Hammond, pp [5]; Fig. 4, pp [50]-[51], Fig. 6, pp [54] and Fig. 7, pp [55]).
Regarding claim 16. Hammond teaches the network test device of claim 9, wherein the one or more components are configured to create the one or more MIMO channels based on a number of UEs, a polarization, and a number of layers per polarization for a given UE (Hammond, pp [5]; Fig. 4, pp [50]-[51], Fig. 6, pp [54] and Fig. 7, pp [55]).
Regarding claim 19. Hammond teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the network test device, further cause the network test device to:
identify one or more layers in a sequential manner for each of a plurality of UEs (Hammond, pp [5]; Fig. 4, pp [50]-[51], Fig. 6, pp [54] and Fig. 7, pp [55]); or
identify first layers for each of a plurality of UEs, and subsequently identify second layers for each of the plurality of UEs (Hammond, pp [5]; Fig. 4, pp [50]-[51], Fig. 6, pp [54] and Fig. 7, pp [55]).
Regarding claim 20. Hammond teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the network test device, further cause the network test device to:
create the one or more MIMO channels based on a number of UEs, a polarization, and a number of layers per polarization for a given UE (Hammond, pp [5]; Fig. 4, pp [50]-[51], Fig. 6, pp [54] and Fig. 7, pp [55]).
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.
Claim(s) 4, 7, 12, 15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hammond et al. (Pub. No. US 2021/0250071) and further in view of Shtrom (Pub. No. US 2017/0214439).
Regarding claim 4. Hammond does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein the second location is selected to minimize an interference with the first location.
Shtrom teaches “the second location is selected to minimize an interference with the first location.” (Shtrom, pp [25]-[26], [33]-[34]: locations of devices in subset of multi-user MIMO group which receives/transmits data with respect to beam patterns are arranged in ways such as exclusion zones in the beam patterns receiving/transmitting to reduce interference from signal transmission/reception).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the affective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Hammond by incorporating teachings of Shtrom, method and system for multi-user multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) group, wherein devices from a subset of the multi-user MIMO group to which it communicates data will calculate beam-pattern settings for a set of antennas so that, when communicating with the subset, the devices in the subset are located on beams within beam patterns formed by the set of antennas while a remainder of the other devices are located at exclusion zones in the beam patterns thus minimizing the interference when communicating and therefore improving the communication for users in the multi-user MIMO group.
Regarding claim 7. Hammond does not teach the method of claim 1, wherein selecting the second location is based on a shift in one dimension from the first location, and wherein the second location is within a threshold distance from the first location.
Shtrom teaches “selecting the second location is based on a shift in one dimension from the first location, and wherein the second location is within a threshold distance from the first location.” (Shtrom, pp [25]-[26], [33]-[34]: locations of devices in subset of multi-user MIMO group which receives/transmits data with respect to beam patterns are arranged in such a way, e.g., exclusion zones to reduce interference from signal transmission/reception, so devices are in range of receiving/transmitting signals/data for communication by the beam patterns but still receiving/transmitting signals/data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the affective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Hammond by incorporating teachings of Shtrom, method and system for multi-user multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) group, wherein devices from a subset of the multi-user MIMO group to which it communicates data will calculate beam-pattern settings for a set of antennas so that, when communicating with the subset, the devices in the subset are located on beams within beam patterns formed by the set of antennas while a remainder of the other devices are located at exclusion zones in the beam patterns thus minimizing the interference when communicating and therefore improving the communication for users in the multi-user MIMO group.
Regarding claim 12. Hammond does not teach the network test device of claim 9, wherein the second location is selected to minimize an interference with the first location.
Shtrom teaches “the second location is selected to minimize an interference with the first location.” (Shtrom, pp [25]-[26], [33]-[34]: locations of devices in subset of multi-user MIMO group which receives/transmits data with respect to beam patterns are arranged in ways such as exclusion zones in the beam patterns receiving/transmitting to reduce interference from signal transmission/reception).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the affective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Hammond by incorporating teachings of Shtrom, method and system for multi-user multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) group, wherein devices from a subset of the multi-user MIMO group to which it communicates data will calculate beam-pattern settings for a set of antennas so that, when communicating with the subset, the devices in the subset are located on beams within beam patterns formed by the set of antennas while a remainder of the other devices are located at exclusion zones in the beam patterns thus minimizing the interference when communicating and therefore improving the communication for users in the multi-user MIMO group.
Regarding claim 15. Hammond does not teach the network test device of claim 9, wherein the one or more components are configured to select the second location based on a shift in one dimension from the first location, and wherein the second location is within a threshold distance from the first location.
Shtrom teaches “select the second location based on a shift in one dimension from the first location, and wherein the second location is within a threshold distance from the first location.” (Shtrom, pp [25]-[26], [33]-[34]: locations of devices in subset of multi-user MIMO group which receives/transmits data with respect to beam patterns are arranged in such a way, e.g., exclusion zones to reduce interference from signal transmission/reception, so devices are in range of receiving/transmitting signals/data for communication by the beam patterns but still receiving/transmitting signals/data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the affective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Hammond by incorporating teachings of Shtrom, method and system for multi-user multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) group, wherein devices from a subset of the multi-user MIMO group to which it communicates data will calculate beam-pattern settings for a set of antennas so that, when communicating with the subset, the devices in the subset are located on beams within beam patterns formed by the set of antennas while a remainder of the other devices are located at exclusion zones in the beam patterns thus minimizing the interference when communicating and therefore improving the communication for users in the multi-user MIMO group.
Regarding claim 18. Hammond teaches the non-transitory computer-readable medium of claim 17, wherein the one or more instructions, when executed by the one or more processors of the network test device, further cause the network test device to:
select the second location based on one or more criteria, and wherein the one or more criteria include one or more of an average signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR), a minimum SINR, or a channel condition number (Hammond, pp [2], [5], [39]-[40]).
Hammond, however, does not teach:
select the second location such that the second location minimizes an interference with the first location;
select the second location based on a shift in one dimension from the first location, and wherein the second location is within a threshold distance from the first location.
Shtrom teaches “select the second location such that the second location minimizes an interference with the first location; select the second location based on a shift in one dimension from the first location, and wherein the second location is within a threshold distance from the first location.” (Shtrom, pp [25]-[26], [33]-[34]: locations of devices in subset of multi-user MIMO group which receives/transmits data with respect to beam patterns are arranged in such a way, e.g., exclusion zones to reduce interference from signal transmission/reception, so devices are in range of receiving/transmitting signals/data for communication by the beam patterns but still receiving/transmitting signals/data).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the affective filing date of the claimed invention was made to modify Hammond by incorporating teachings of Shtrom, method and system for multi-user multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) group, wherein devices from a subset of the multi-user MIMO group to which it communicates data will calculate beam-pattern settings for a set of antennas so that, when communicating with the subset, the devices in the subset are located on beams within beam patterns formed by the set of antennas while a remainder of the other devices are located at exclusion zones in the beam patterns thus minimizing the interference when communicating and therefore improving the communication for users in the multi-user MIMO group.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUY C HO whose telephone number is (571)270-1108. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8AM-5PM.
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, KATHY WANG-HURST can be reached at (571)270-5371. 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.
/HUY C HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2644
Prosecution Insights