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 .
This application has been examined.
Claims 1-48 were originally filed. In a preliminary amendment, claims 1-48 were cancelled and claims 49-66 were newly added and are ready for examination.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 49-51, 56-58, and 62-66 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kasapi et al. USPN 7,660,276; hereinafter Kasapi).
Regarding claim 49 Kasapi discloses a beam updater circuit (fig. 2) comprising:
interface circuitry (transmitter/receiver 206, 208); and
processing circuitry (control logic 202) configured to:
revise a beamforming solution according to an iterative update procedure (col. 12, lines 22-25; iterative process), wherein the beamforming solution comprises two or more transmit beamforming vectors (col. 14, lines 19-45; wherein vector are identified and used in the process of spatial signature identification that is used for beamforming), each transmit beamforming vector for multi-lobe beamforming of a respective signal for a respective population of receivers (col. 7, lines 10-35; multi-lobe beampatterns may be generated, wherein one (or more) lobe(s) is directed to the intended recipient of the present signal on the communication channel, and another (one or more) lobe(s) is directed to the next user(s) of the communication channel), and wherein each iteration comprises:
selecting a representative receiver among each population of receivers, based on received-signal quality estimates for the receivers in the population, the received-signal quality estimates dependent upon the two or more transmit beamforming vectors (col. 10, lines 27-55; at least one target is identified for clustering purposes, based on attributes like RRSI/SINR, for example, which relate to channel quality); and
revising the two or more transmit beamforming vectors, according to an incremental change that is calculated by optimizing received-signal quality and mutual interference at the representative receivers, where the mutual interference is between the respective signals (col. 4, lines 1-14; col. 10, line 54 – col. 11, line 6; col. 11, lines 50-65; col. 14, lines 20-50; wherein vectors/weights are altered according to channel attributes, in order to maximize channel quality and avoid interference); and
terminate the iterative update procedure responsive to fulfillment of a termination condition (col. 12, lines 15-25; col. 13, lines 18-40; steps 610, 710 in figures 6, 7; wherein the processes are terminated or stopped as requirements are fulfilled or met); and
apply, via the interface circuitry, each one of the two or more transmit beamforming vectors to beamforming of the respective signal (col. 14, lines 19-65; wherein vectors/weights/signatures are used and a multi-lobe beampattern is generated and used for communicating with targets in each cluster of users).
Regarding claim 50 Kasapi discloses the beam updater circuit according to claim 49, wherein each iteration further includes normalizing the two or more transmit beamforming vectors responsive to determining that applying the two or more transmit beamforming vectors, as revised according to the incremental change, would result in exceeding a maximum transmit power (col. 14, lines 19-65; controlling the intended power to be received by the targets).
Regarding claim 51 Kasapi discloses the beam updater circuit according to claim 49, wherein the received-signal quality estimates for the receivers in the population change from one iteration to the next, in dependence on the revision made to the two or more transmit beamforming vectors in each iteration, such that the representative receiver selected for each population in a next iteration is not necessarily the same receiver selected for the population in a current iteration (col. 11, line 40 – col. 12, line 24; col. 12, lines 48-60; col. 13, lines 20-30; wherein a target is selected and reselected according to attributes measured and determined, and a target can be changed a new cluster generated in accordance with the attributes).
Regarding claim 56 Kasapi discloses the beam updater circuit according to claim 49, wherein, at least for iterations beyond a first iteration of the iterative update procedure, each iteration further comprises the beam updater circuit calculating the received-signal quality estimates for the receivers in each population, based on the two or more transmit beamforming vectors as revised in the prior iteration and channel vectors relating the receivers in the population to transmit antennas used for beamforming the respective signals (col. 11, line 40 – col. 12, line 24; col. 12, lines 48-60; col. 13, lines 20-30; col. 14, lines 19-65; wherein each repetition channel attributes are re-determined using modified vectors/weights to (re)generate a beampattern).
Regarding claim 57 Kasapi discloses the beam updater circuit according to claim 49, wherein, with respect to revising the beamforming solution according to the iterative update procedure, ongoing beamforming uses copies of the two or more transmit beamforming vectors as they existed before commencement of the iterative update procedure, with the beam updater circuit configured to update the copies after completion of the iterative update procedure (col. 11, line 40 – col. 12, line 24; col. 12, lines 48-60; col. 13, lines 20-30; col. 14, lines 19-65; ongoing beamforming pattern uses current weights and ai/a2 vectors, until the process is repeated as needed or if required).
Regarding claim 58 Kasapi discloses the beam updater circuit according to claim 49, wherein the beam updater circuit is configured to apply the two or more transmit beamforming vectors, as revised in each iteration of the iterative update procedure, to ongoing beamforming of the respective signals (col. 11, line 40 – col. 12, line 24; col. 12, lines 48-60; col. 13, lines 20-30; col. 14, lines 19-65; current weights and ai/a2 vectors are used for the ongoing beamformer pattern).
Regarding claim 62 Kasapi discloses the beam updater circuit according to claim 49, wherein the beam updater circuit is further configured to initialize each transmit beamforming vector as a superposition of respective transmit beamforming vectors individually calculated for some or all the receivers in the respective population, and subsequently revise the transmit beamforming vector by performing the iterative update procedure (col. 14, lines 19-65; clustering engine 212 forms a linear superposition of two weights w1 and w2, respectively).
Regarding claim 63 Kasapi discloses the beam updater circuit according to claim 49, wherein incremental change comprises respective incremental changes for the two or more transmit beamforming vectors (col. 11, line 40 – col. 12, line 24; col. 12, lines 48-60; col. 13, lines 20-30; col. 14, lines 19-65; small changes for each vector/weight).
Regarding claim 64 Kasapi discloses the beam updater circuit according to claim 49, wherein optimizing is based on solving an optimization problem that accounts for mutual interference among the respective signals at the respective representative receivers (col. 4, lines 1-14; col. 10, line 54 – col. 11, line 6; col. 11, lines 50-65; col. 14, lines 20-50; wherein vectors/weights are altered according to channel attributes, in order to maximize channel quality and avoid interference).
Regarding claim 65 Kasapi discloses the beam updater circuit according to claim 64, wherein the optimization problem is a gradient descent problem that depends jointly on channel state estimates of the respective representative receivers (col. 4, lines 1-14; col. 10, line 54 – col. 11, line 6; col. 11, lines 50-65; col. 14, lines 20-50; channel attributes for each receiver).
Regarding claim 66 Kasapi discloses the beam updater circuit according to claim 49, wherein each respective signal is a multicast signal conveying information common to the receivers in the respective population (fig. 10, col. 3, lines 40-50; multi-point or multicast transmissions which are from a single point to selected targets).
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.
Claim(s) 52-55 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasapi in view of Raghavan et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2023/0155650; hereinafter Raghavan).
Regarding claim 52 Kasapi discloses the beam updater circuit according to claim 49. Kasapi fails to explicitly disclose but Raghavan, in a similar field of endeavor related to beamforming, discloses wherein the beam updater circuit is configured to obtain Channel State Information (CSI) for the receivers in each population, and wherein the received-signal quality estimates for the receivers in each population are included in the CSI or calculated by the beam updater circuit in dependence on the CSI (paragraph 0081; wherein CSI is requested by base station and transmitted by terminals as feedback for beam selection and beamforming). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kasapi with the teachings of Raghavan, in order to improve system performance (Raghavan: paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 53 the modified Kasapi discloses the beam updater circuit according to claim 52. Kasapi fails to explicitly disclose but Raghavan, in a similar field of endeavor related to beamforming, discloses wherein the beam updater circuit is configured to obtain the CSI by one of: receiving reported CSI originating from respective ones of the receivers in each population, or determining the CSI based on channel modeling utilizing the geographic positions of the receivers in each population (paragraph 0081; wherein CSI is requested by base station and transmitted by terminals as feedback for beam selection and beamforming). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kasapi with the teachings of Raghavan, in order to improve system performance (Raghavan: paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 54 the modified Kasapi discloses the beam updater circuit according to claim 52, wherein the CSI comprises channel estimates, each channel estimate estimating a transmission channel between a corresponding one of the receivers in each population and transmit antennas used for beamforming the respective signals (please note that channel estimation is required for determination of channel characteristics, as known in the art, thus, the channel attributed determined by Kasapi and the CSI taught by Raghavan, both require channel estimation).
Regarding claim 55 the modified Kasapi discloses the beam updater circuit according to claim 54, wherein the channel estimates are static with respect to performing the iterative update procedure (wherein both the channel attributed determined by Kasapi and the CSI taught by Raghavan require channel estimation, and they provide static values of RSSI/SINR, for example as Kasapi teaches and is disclosed in the citations provided above).
Claim(s) 59-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kasapi in view of Buer et al. (USPN 11,018,757; hereinafter Buer).
Regarding claim 59 Kasapi discloses the beam updater circuit according to claim 49, wherein each population of receivers comprises a population of terrestrial terminals served by the respective signal (see figures 9-10). Kasapi fails to explicitly disclose but Buer, in a similar field of endeavor related to beamforming, discloses each population of receivers comprises a population of terrestrial terminals served by the respective signal as relayed by a communications satellite of a satellite communications system (col. 5, lines 5-23; wireless relay communication systems using satellite communication and beamforming). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kasapi with the teachings of Buer, in order to improve beamformed transmission (Buer: col. 2, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 60 Kasapi discloses the beam updater circuit according to claim 59. Kasapi fails to explicitly disclose but Buer, in a similar field of endeavor related to beamforming, discloses wherein a transmitter that applies the two or more transmit beamforming vectors is on-board the communications satellite (col. 8, lines 39-67; transmit beamformer 315 applies a vector of L weights to each of the K signals for a total of L×K transmit beam weights to form K beams). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kasapi with the teachings of Buer, in order to improve beamformed transmission (Buer: col. 2, lines 1-4).
Regarding claim 61 Kasapi discloses the beam updater circuit according to claim 59. Kasapi fails to explicitly disclose but Buer, in a similar field of endeavor related to beamforming, discloses wherein a transmitter that applies to the two or more transmit beamforming vectors is a ground-based transmitter (col. 5, lines 30-55; system 100 comprises a ground-based Earth station 101, a communication satellite 103, and an Earth transmission source, such as a user terminal 105. A satellite coverage area may be broadly defined as that area from which, and/or to which, either an Earth transmission source, or an Earth receiver, such as a ground-based Earth station or a user terminal). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the teachings of Kasapi with the teachings of Buer, in order to improve beamformed transmission (Buer: col. 2, lines 1-4).
Citation of Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
USPN 6,185,440 to Barratt et al. – which discloses a method and apparatus for transmitting a downlink signal from a communication station to one or more subscriber units to achieve a desired radiation level over a desired sector (e.g., everywhere), the communication station including an array of antenna elements and one or more signal processors programmed (in the case of programmable signal processors) to weight the downlink signal according to one of a sequence of complex valued weight vectors.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Aixa A Guadalupe-Cruz whose telephone number is (571)270-7523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 6AM - 4:00PM.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466
/Aixa Guadalupe-Cruz/
Examiner
Art Unit 2466
Prosecution Insights