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 § 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.
Claims 1, 9, and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi et al. (US 2023/0189264 A1) in view of Khlat (US 2013/0337753 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Choi discloses a processor (120) comprising memory (130) configured to cause the processor to: receive configuration information indicating to use a first antenna port for a single layer uplink multiple input multiple output (MIMO) communication (e.g. paragraph [0169]; [0143]; [0180]; [0225]; and so on, explaining UE assumes the SU-MIMO operation according to configuration received from the BS including antenna port(s)); swap the first antenna port and the second antenna port, and perform the single layer uplink MIMO communication using the second antenna (paragraph [0169]-[0170]; (0143]; and so on, describing the antenna ports are switching or swapping and data is transmitted).
Choi does not explicitly disclose wherein the first antenna port is associated with a first antenna, wherein a second antenna port is associated with a second antenna, and the swap is such that the first antenna port is associated with the second antenna and the second antenna port is associated with the first antenna.
Khlat teaches wherein the first antenna port is associated with a first antenna, wherein a second antenna port is associated with a second antenna, and the swap is such that the first antenna port is associated with the second antenna and the second antenna port is associated with the first antenna (paragraph [0241]-[0243]; [0247]-[0248]; [0253]; [0256]-[0257]; [0262]; and so on, explaining antennas ANT1 and ANT2 are associated with ports 98-M1 and 100-M2, and the port 98-M1 and port 100-M2 are swapped or switched, and now the port 100-M2 is associated with ANT1 and port 98-M1 is associated with ANT2 through signals TXCA1 and TXCA2 respectively).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use wherein the first antenna port is associated with a first antenna, wherein a second antenna port is associated with a second antenna, and the swap is such that the first antenna port is associated with the second antenna and the second antenna port is associated with the first antenna as taught by Khlat into Choi in order to improve quality of communication and to reduce power consumption.
Regarding claim 9 and 16-17, the claims include features identical to the subject matter mentioned in the rejection to claim 1. The claims are mere reformulation of claim 1 in order to define the corresponding a wireless device and a method for operation in wireless communication, and the rejection to claim 1 is applied hereto.
Claims 2-3 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Khlat, and further in view of Seo et al. (US 2023/0413188 A1).
Regarding claim 2-3 and 10-11, as applied above, Choi discloses wherein the memory is further configured to cause the processor to: determine to swap the first antenna port and the second antenna for the single layer uplink MIMO communication. However, Choi does not disclose the swap is based at least in part on a maximum transmit power level for the first antenna port and a maximum transmit power level for the second antenna port, and/or at least in part on reference signal received power (RSRP) for the first antenna port and RSRP for the second antenna port.
Seo teaches the swap is based at least in part on a maximum transmit power level for the first antenna port and a maximum transmit power level for the second antenna port, and/or at least in part on reference signal received power (RSRP) for the first antenna port and RSRP for the second antenna port (paragraph [0090]-[0094]; [0098]-[0103]; [0013]-[0018]; [0022]-[0024]; [0038]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the swap is based at least in part on a maximum transmit power level for the first antenna port and a maximum transmit power level for the second antenna port, and/or at least in part on reference signal received power (RSRP) for the first antenna port and RSRP for the second antenna port as taught by Seo to Choi in order to improve quality of service and lowering costs.
Claims 4 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Khlat, and further in view of Kotamraju et al. (US 2024/0243787 A1).
Regarding claim 4 and 12, as applied above, Choi discloses wherein the memory is further configured to cause the processor to: determine to swap the first antenna port and the second antenna port for the single layer uplink MIMO communication. Choi does not disclose the swap is based at least in part on an error rate for previous single layer uplink MIMO communication using the first antenna port.
Kotamraju teaches the swap is based at least in part on an error rate for previous single layer uplink MIMO communication using the first antenna port (paragraph [0069]-[0072]; [0093]; [0121]; [0061]; and so on).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use the swap is based at least in part on an error rate for previous single layer uplink MIMO communication using the first antenna port as taught by Kotamraju into Choi in order to reduce congestion and to improve rate of communication.
Claims 5, 13-14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Choi in view of Khlat, and further in view of Lee et al. (US 2022/0295593 A1).
Regarding claim 5, 13-14, and 20, as applied above, Choi discloses wherein the memory is further configured to cause the processor to: determine to swap the first antenna port and the second antenna port for the single layer uplink MIMO communication. Choi does not disclose receive hand grip information, and the swap is based at least in part on the hand grip information.
Lee teaches receive hand grip information, and the swap is based at least in part on the hand grip information (paragraph [0174]; [0196]; [0088]-[0089]; [0092]; [0097]-[0098]; and etc.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to use receive hand grip information, and the swap is based at least in part on the hand grip information as taught by Lee into Choi in order to improve efficiency of communication and power consumption.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8, 15, and 18-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KIBROM T HAILU whose telephone number is (571)270-1209. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:00 AM to 5:30 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, HUY D VU can be reached at (571)272-3155. 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.
/KIBROM T HAILU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights