DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
This action is in response to application 18847991 filed 9/17/24.
Claim(s) 50-69 is/are presented for examination.
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.
Claim(s) 69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the claimed invention is directed to nonstatutory subject matter.
The "system” claim(s) 69 is/are not to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter. The claimed element’s “control node” are non-structure limitations, since the Specification is silent regarding the meaning of these terms. Thus, applying the broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the Specification and taking into account the meaning of the words in their original usage as they would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP §2111.01), a machine must comprise (at least one) structure element/limitation that showing it is a tangible embodiment, providing evidence that the abstract idea has been applied (a practical application) and that it would not cover all substantial practical uses of the abstract idea (see MPEP §2106 II.(A)). Therefore, the claimed subject matter as a whole fails to fall within the definition of a machine/manufacturer patentable eligible category subject matter.
As such, the claim(s) 69 is/are not limited to statutory subject matter and is therefore nonstatutory. See MPEP 2106 section V.DETERMINE WHETHER THE CLAIMED INVENTION COMPLIES WITH 35 U.S.C. §101 under subsection 1. Nonstatutory subject matter.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 54, 58, 62 & 64 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: and/or. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim(s) 50, 51, 52, 66, 67, 68 & 69 is/are unclear to the examiner; what does it mean by stating “generation of a PAPR reduced MIMO signal by combining the rank-extended MIMO signal with a projection of the clipping signal onto the null space of the MIMO channel”? the claim languages are not very clear what is a claimed invention, what exactly the applicant trying to accomplished? To generate reduce MIMO signal? To do what? For what? Please clarify
Claim(s) 60 is/are unclear to the examiner; what does it mean by stating “the generation of the PAPR reduced MIMO signal to be executed only when the MIMO channel fulfills a frequency flatness condition”? the claim languages are not very clear how to or what determined a channel fulfills a “frequency flatness condition”? please clarify
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claim(s) 50-53, 59-69 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haza, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2021/0298027 A1 in view of Li, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2015/0264700 A1.
As to claim 52, Haza teaches an apparatus for reduction of peak-to-average power ratio, PAPR, of transmission using multiple-input multiple-output, MIMO, from a transmitter, the apparatus comprising controlling circuitry configured to cause:
definition of a rank-extended MIMO transmission towards one or more intended receivers (Haza, page 2, paragraph 27; i.e., [0027] the desired error vector
magnitude distribution or clipping noise distribution with a lower code rate and/or with
lower MIMO rank than resource blocks or resource elements having a higher code rate and/or with higher MIMO rank);
generation of a rank-extended MIMO signal for the rank-extended MIMO transmission, wherein the rank-extended MIMO signal comprises an intended receiver signal portion (Haza, page 2, paragraph 27; page 4, paragraph 67; i.e., [0027] the desired error vector magnitude distribution or clipping noise distribution with a lower code rate and/or with lower MIMO rank than resource blocks or resource elements having a higher code rate and/or with higher MIMO rank);
determination of a clipping signal for the rank-extended MIMO signal (Haza, page 2, paragraph 27; page 4, paragraph 67; i.e., [0027] the desired error vector magnitude distribution or clipping noise distribution with a lower code rate and/or with lower MIMO rank than resource blocks or resource elements having a higher code rate and/or with higher MIMO rank); and
generation of a PAPR reduced MIMO signal by combining the rank-extended MIMO signal with a projection of the clipping signal (Haza, page 2, paragraph 27; page 4, paragraph 67; i.e., [0027] the desired error vector magnitude distribution or clipping noise distribution with a lower code rate and/or with lower MIMO rank than resource blocks or resource elements having a higher code rate and/or with higher MIMO rank).
But Haza failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the one or more virtual receivers reside in a null space of a MIMO channel between the transmitter and the one or more intended receivers; and a virtual receiver signal portion; signal onto the null space of the MIMO channel.
However, Li teaches the limitation wherein the one or more virtual receivers reside in a null space of a MIMO channel between the transmitter and the one or more intended receivers (Li, page 4, paragraph 90; i.e., [0090] a virtual user equipment, and antenna transmission of the multiple user equipment 2 are considered as transmission of multiple antennas of one virtual user equipment. The virtual user equipment uses, according to the first scheduling message, the precoding matrix to perform precoding on the codeword of the multiple layers, so as to generate an uplink signal. The virtual user equipment sends, by using the multiple antennas, the uplink signal; [NOTE: according to the Wikipedia definition, null space is equating to precoding, kernel, zero-forcing]); and a virtual receiver signal portion; signal onto the null space of the MIMO channel (Li, page 4, paragraph 90; i.e., [0090] a virtual user equipment, and antenna transmission of the multiple user equipment 2 are considered as transmission of multiple antennas of one virtual user equipment. The virtual user equipment uses, according to the first scheduling message, the precoding matrix to perform precoding on the codeword of the multiple layers, so as to generate an uplink signal. The virtual user equipment sends, by using the multiple antennas, the uplink signal [NOTE: according to the Wikipedia definition, null space is equating to precoding, kernel, zero-forcing]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Haza to substitute MAC packet from Li for transmission data from Haza to provide MU-MIMO manner which is based on precoding, has a low receiving condition for a user equipment channel, and has high uplink spectral efficiency (Li, page 1, paragraph 7).
As to claim 53, Haza-Li teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 52, wherein the controlling circuitry is further configured to cause transmission of the PAPR reduced MIMO signal over the MIMO channel (Haza, page 4, paragraph 55; i.e., [0055] Crest Factor Reduction (CFR) algorithm, implemented, for example, in a Digital Front End (DFE) of a radio unit. The CFR algorithm may be used to reduce Peak to Average Ratio (PAR) or Peak to Average Power Ratio (PAPR) of a signal).
As to claim 54, Haza-Li teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 52. But Haza failed to teach the claim limitation wherein respective directions from the transmitter towards the one or more virtual receivers are different, and/or wherein respective directions from the transmitter towards the one or more virtual receivers are variable between different subcarriers.
However, Li teaches the limitation wherein respective directions from the transmitter towards the one or more virtual receivers are different, and/or wherein respective directions from the transmitter towards the one or more virtual receivers are variable between different subcarriers (Li, page 4, paragraph 90; i.e., [0090] a virtual user equipment, and antenna transmission of the multiple user equipment 2 are considered as transmission of multiple antennas of one virtual user equipment. The virtual user equipment uses, according to the first scheduling message, the precoding matrix to perform precoding on the codeword of the multiple layers, so as to generate an uplink signal. The virtual user equipment sends, by using the multiple antennas, the uplink signal; [NOTE: according to the Wikipedia definition, null space is equating to precoding, kernel, zero-forcing]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Haza to substitute MAC packet from Li for transmission data from Haza to provide MU-MIMO manner which is based on precoding, has a low receiving condition for a user equipment channel, and has high uplink spectral efficiency (Li, page 1, paragraph 7).
As to claim 55, Haza-Li teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 52. But Haza failed to teach the claim limitation wherein respective directions from the transmitter towards the one or more virtual receivers avoid a direction from the transmitter towards an interference sensitive device.
However, Li teaches the limitation wherein respective directions from the transmitter towards the one or more virtual receivers avoid a direction from the transmitter towards an interference sensitive device (Li, page 1, paragraph 6; i.e., [0006] using short-distance technologies, such as WIFI and Bluetooth, and may also be implemented by using Long Term Evolution D2D (LTE D2D ); a manner of uplink multi-user multiple-input multiple output (MU-MIMO) in an LTE system is virtual multiple input
multiple-output (virtual-MIMO)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Haza to substitute MAC packet from Li for transmission data from Haza to provide MU-MIMO manner which is based on precoding, has a low receiving condition for a user equipment channel, and has high uplink spectral efficiency (Li, page 1, paragraph 7).
As to claim 57, Haza-Li teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 52,
wherein the null space of the MIMO channel is representable by a vector basis, and wherein the controlling circuitry is configured to cause the definition of the rank-extended MIMO transmission by causing, for each of the one or more virtual receivers, selection of one or more base vectors from the vector basis for beamforming of signal components for the corresponding virtual receiver (Haza, page 2, paragraph 27; i.e., [0027] the desired error vector magnitude distribution or clipping noise distribution with a lower code rate and/or with lower MIMO rank than resource blocks or resource elements having a higher code rate and/or with higher MIMO rank), or
wherein the null space of the MIMO channel is representable by a vector basis associated with a projection matrix, and wherein the controlling circuitry is configured to cause the definition of the rank-extended MIMO transmission by causing - responsive to the projection matrix being rank-deficient - generation of an alternative vector basis for the null space and, for each of the one or more virtual receivers, selection of one or more base vectors from the alternative vector basis for beamforming of signal components of the corresponding virtual receiver.
As to claim 58, Haza-Li teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 57. But Haza failed to teach the claim limitation wherein the selection of one or more base vectors is variable between the one or more virtual receivers and/or between different subcarriers.
However, Li teaches the limitation wherein the selection of one or more base vectors is variable between the one or more virtual receivers and/or between different subcarriers (Li, page 4, paragraph 90; i.e., [0090] a virtual user equipment, and antenna transmission of the multiple user equipment 2 are considered as transmission of multiple antennas of one virtual user equipment. The virtual user equipment uses, according to the first scheduling message, the precoding matrix to perform precoding on the codeword of the multiple layers, so as to generate an uplink signal. The virtual user equipment sends, by using the multiple antennas, the uplink signal; [NOTE: according to the Wikipedia definition, null space is equating to precoding, kernel, zero-forcing]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Haza to substitute MAC packet from Li for transmission data from Haza to provide MU-MIMO manner which is based on precoding, has a low receiving condition for a user equipment channel, and has high uplink spectral efficiency (Li, page 1, paragraph 7).
As to claim 59, Haza-Li teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 52, wherein the virtual receiver signal portion comprises one or more of: default traffic, random traffic, and copied traffic intended for the one or more intended receivers (Haza, page 5, paragraph 77; i.e., [0077] for transmission using a communication system (such as a mobile communication system)).
As to claim 60, Haza-Li teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 52, wherein the controlling circuitry is configured to cause the definition of the rank-extended MIMO transmission, the generation of the rank-extended MIMO signal, the determination of the clipping signal, and the generation of the PAPR reduced MIMO signal to be executed only when the MIMO channel fulfills a frequency flatness condition (Haza, page 2, paragraph 27; page 4, paragraph 67; i.e., [0027] the desired error vector magnitude distribution or clipping noise distribution with a lower code rate and/or with lower MIMO rank than resource blocks or resource elements having a higher code rate and/or with higher MIMO rank).
As to claim 61, Haza-Li teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 52, wherein a number of virtual receivers increases when magnitude variance between frequencies of the MIMO channel decreases (Haza, page 7, paragraph 118; i.e., [0118]
desired error vector magnitude distribution has a higher noise level within at least some
guard bands of carrier signals than within inband portions of the corresponding carrier signals).
As to claim 62, Haza-Li teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 52, wherein power allocated to the one or more virtual receivers increases when magnitude variance between frequencies of the MIMO channel decreases, and/or wherein power allocated to the one or more virtual receivers increases when power allocated to the one or more intended receivers decreases, and/or wherein power allocated to the one or more virtual receivers is variable between the one or more virtual receivers and/or between different subcarriers (Haza, page 5, paragraph 83; i.e., [0083] an old impulse response (for old weights) and a new impulse response (for new weights)).
As to claim 63, Haza-Li teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 52, wherein generation of the PAPR reduced MIMO signal comprises combining the rank-extended MIMO signal with the projection of the clipping signal onto the null space of the MIMO channel, and with a projection - scaled by a weighting factor - of the clipping signal onto a signal space of the MIMO channel (Haza, page 5, paragraph 85; i.e., [0085] the first multiplier 56 receives weight w0 (k), the second multiplier 57 receives weight w 1 (k) and the M-th multiplier 58 receives weight w M-I (k)).
As to claim 64, Haza-Li teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 63, wherein the weighting factor increases when a minimum distance between symbols of a coding and modulation alphabet increases, and/or wherein the weighting factor increases when magnitude variance between frequencies of the MIMO channel decreases, and/or wherein the weighting factor is variable between the one or more intended receivers and/or between different subcarriers, and/or wherein the weighting factor and power allocated to the one or more virtual receivers are selected jointly (Haza, page 5, paragraph 85; i.e., [0085] the first multiplier 56 receives weight w0 (k), the second multiplier 57 receives weight w 1 (k) and the M-th multiplier 58 receives weight w M-I (k)).
As to claim 65, Haza-Li teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 64, wherein the weighting factor and power allocated to the one or more virtual receivers are selected jointly, and wherein the joint selection also comprises selection of maximal magnitude of the clipping signal, wherein the maximal magnitude of the clipping signal decreases when magnitude variance between frequencies of the MIMO channel decreases (Haza, page 5, paragraph 85; i.e., [0085] the first multiplier 56 receives weight w0 (k), the second multiplier 57 receives weight w 1 (k) and the M-th multiplier 58 receives weight w M-I (k)).
Claim(s) 50, 51, 66,67, 68 & 69 is/are directed to a method, non-transitory computer readable medium and system claims and they do not teach or further define over the limitations recited in claim(s) 52. Therefore, claim(s) 50, 51, 66,67, 68 & 69 is/are also rejected for similar reasons set forth in claim(s) 52.
Claim(s) 56 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haza, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2021/0298027 A1 in view of Li, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 2015/0264700 A1, and further in view of Yang, US 2021/0409251 A1.
As to claim 56, Haza-Li teaches the apparatus as recited in claim 52. But Haza-Li failed to teach the claim limitation wherein at least one of the one or more virtual receivers resides in a direction from the transmitter towards an energy harvesting device.
However, Yang teaches the limitation wherein at least one of the one or more virtual receivers resides in a direction from the transmitter towards an energy harvesting device (Yang, page 2, paragraph 27; i.e., [0027] network element in a radio access network responsible for radio transmission. A base station as a base transceiver station (BTS), a radio base station, a radio transceiver, a transceiver function, a basic service set (BSS)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective date of the claimed invention to modify Haza-Li to substitute OFDM from Yang for combined signal from Haza-Li to improve transmission performance by enabling a higher average transmission power without distorting the waveform (Yang, page 1, paragraph 3).
Listing of Relevant Arts
Ma, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20200336178 A1 discloses MU-MIMO and virtual MIMO.
Kant, U.S. Patent/Pub. No. US 20200052945 A1 discloses PAPR, crest factor and clipping signal.
Contact Information
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
THUONG NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-3864. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:00-6:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Noel Beharry can be reached on 571-270-5630. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/THUONG NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2416
Prosecution Insights