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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 00104 contains a reference to “Johnson inequality” which does not seem to be the correct terminology or a misprint of “Jensen’s inequality”.
Paragraph 00114 – Some of the units following the numerical values are hard to read such as the units following the carrier frequency, subcarrier interval etc.
Paragraphs 00099-00102, 0075-0079 contains different versions of “step 1, step 2, step 3”
Appropriate correction is required.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. CN 202210317238.1, filed on 03/29/2022.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The acronym MIMO should be spelled out the first time it is referenced.
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
The acronym MM algorithm should be spelled out the first time it is referenced.
The use of characters ①, ②, ③, ect. are not permitted as they are not acceptable characters to be used within a patent.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “beam mapping module of each user is configured to map a low dimensional beam domain precoding signal of each user to a complete beam domain transmitted signal, the beam modulating module is configured to multiply a beam matrix by a beam domain transmitted signal vector, and the beam domain transmitted signal vector is a sum of beam domain transmitted signal vectors for each user;” in claim 1.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 5-8, 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "wherein step (4)" in the second line of claim 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Step 4 does not appear in claim 6.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "Steps 2 to 3" in examples (1), (2), and (3). There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not definitively clear which “steps 2 to 3” are being referred to in: “repeating, until reaching a preset number of iterations or a precoding convergence, Steps 2 to 3, and obtaining an optimal beam domain precoder of each user;”; for examples (1), (2), and (3) there are multiple sets of “steps 2 to 3” within the body of the entire claim 6.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claims 5 and 6 recites the broad recitation “maximizing a system and a rate”, and the claim also recites “maximizing a system traversal and the rate” and additionally “a design for maximizing a system transversal and a rate upper bound” which is the narrowest statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim 5 and 6 recites the limitation "the rate". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether “a rate” in both claims refers to the same “the rate”.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "Johnson’s inequality". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It would appear that it was intended to be “Jensen’s inequality” or possibly “Barrett–Johnson” inequality but there is limited support in the specification for the intended meaning.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite in that it fails to point out what is included or excluded by the claim language. This claim is an omnibus type claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Forenza et al. (US 20220094403 A1), hereinafter Forenza.
Regarding claim 1, Forenza teaches,
A skywave massive MIMO beam structure precoding-based transmission method, wherein the method comprises following steps:
generating, by utilizing a beam structure precoder (Figure 19, labels 1906, 1908, paragraph 0414, 0415 – The figure shows a mapping unit to generate a DIDO precoding weight using a DIDO precoding unit), a transmitted signal (Figure 19, label 1914, paragraph 0414 – The resulting signal is transmitted using an RF unit), through a skywave massive MIMO communication base station (paragraph 0310 – The use of a skywave base station which receives MIMO signal transmission), and transmitting a downlink precoding with one group of users; (Figure 61, Paragraph 0144-0149 – transmission of DIDO using a downlink channel)
wherein the beam structure precoder is composed of a low dimensional beam domain precoder of each user (Figure 19, label 1908, paragraph 0415 – precoding module for each user thar computes input symbols obtained from the mapping unit (label 1906)), a beam mapping module of each user (figure 19, label 1906, paragraph 0415 – The mapping unit encodes and modulates for a plurality of users.), and a beam modulating module (Figure 19, label 1904, paragraph 0415 – “Each coding modulation unit 1904 encodes and modulates the information bits of each user and sends them to the mapping unit 1906.”), the low dimensional beam domain precoder of each user is a precoder on a beam set of each user (figure 19, labels 1906, 1908, 1910 – The precoder takes the DIDO configuration unit (label 1910) and the mapping unit (label 1906) to compute the DIDO precoding weights for each user), the beam mapping module of each user is configured to map a low dimensional beam domain precoding signal of each user to a complete beam domain transmitted signal, (Figure 19, labels 1906, 1908, paragraph 0415 - “The DIDO precoding unit 1908 exploits the information obtained by the DIDO configurator unit 1910 to compute the DIDO precoding weights and precoding the input symbols obtained from the mapping units 1906.” the beam modulating module is configured to multiply a beam matrix by a beam domain transmitted signal vector (Figure 6, labels 603, 630, , paragraph 0296 the formulas following paragraph 0296 – “To achieve this result, the output of each of the three antennas 605 (each of which we will designate as v.sub.i) is a function of ui and the H matrix that characterizes the channel for each Client Device.”, and the beam domain transmitted signal vector is a sum of beam domain transmitted signal vectors for each user; (Figure 6, labels 603, 630, paragraph 0296, the formulas following paragraph 0296 – The beam domain transmitted signal v1 is characterized by the sum of the bit streams and the channel characterization matrix for multiple users.)
designing, by the base station, the low dimensional beam domain precoder of each user, according to a beam based channel representation of each user and beam domain channel information. (paragraph 0375 – “Channel state information can be provided to the station through channel reciprocity or through a feedback channel. One embodiment of the invention comprises a DIDO-OFDM system, with I/Q-aware precoder, with an I/Q-aware feedback channel for conveying channel state information from the user terminals to the station.” Paragraph 0376 - The precoder may be able to choose the mappings and number of users allowed to transmit.)
Regarding claim 10, Forenza teaches,
A skywave massive MIMO beam structure precoding-based transmission system, comprising a base station and a plurality of users, wherein the base station implements the skywave massive MIMO beam structure precoding-based transmission method according to claim 1. (Figure 19 paragraphs 0414, 0415 – The structure of the MIMO system comprising multiple users and a base station implementing the MIMO beam configuration).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Gao et al. (US 20220376750 A1), hereinafter Gao.
Regarding claim 9 Gao teaches,
A skywave massive MIMO beam structure precoding-based transmission system, comprising a skywave massive MIMO communication base station and a plurality of users, (paragraph 0055 – base station, large number of users). wherein the skywave massive MIMO communication base station includes a massive antenna array, (Paragraph 0027 – large scale antenna array.) an operating carrier frequency with a short wave band ranging from 1.6 MHz to 30 MHz, (paragraph 0037 – “The short waveband range is generally 1.6 MHz to 30 MHz.”) and the base station transmits signals to the users through an ionospheric reflection. (Paragraph 0055 – Ionospheric reflection for signal transmission).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forenza in view of Han et al. (US 20200252807), hereinafter Han.
Regarding claim 2, Forenza fails to teach,
The skywave massive MIMO beam structure precoding-based transmission method according to claim 1, wherein the beam matrix refers to a matrix composed of array direction vectors corresponding to one selected set of spatial angle sampling grid points, and each of the array direction vectors is called as one beam.
Han teaches,
The skywave massive MIMO beam structure precoding-based transmission method according to claim 1, wherein the beam matrix refers to a matrix composed of array direction vectors corresponding to one selected set of spatial angle sampling grid points, and each of the array direction vectors is called as one beam. (paragraph 0102 – “Therefore, the at least two vertical areas need to be obtained through division in the physically vertical dimension of the cell coverage area, direction angle information of each vertical area is obtained, and the cell uplink beam matrix is set based on the direction angle information. Because a quantity of beam domains and a corresponding vertical area are determined by the cell uplink beam matrix, the at least two beam domains may be determined based on the cell uplink beam matrix, where one beam domain corresponds to one vertical area.”
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Forenza to incorporate the beam matrix and array direction vector teachings of Han. The purpose of doing so is to improve user channel quality when user equaipments are densely distributed (paragraph 0007, Han).
Claims 3- 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forenza in view of “Robust Transmission for Massive MIMO Downlink with Imperfect CSI” by An-An et al., hereinafter An-An.
Regarding claim 3, Forenza fails to teach,
The skywave massive MIMO beam structure precoding-based transmission method according to claim 1, wherein the beam set of each user refers to a set of beams corresponding to non-zero elements of the beam domain channel in the beam based channel representation of each user, or a selected set including the beam set of each user.
An-An teaches,
The skywave massive MIMO beam structure precoding-based transmission method according to claim 1, wherein the beam set of each user refers to a set of beams corresponding to non-zero elements of the beam domain channel in the beam based channel representation of each user, or a selected set including the beam set of each user. (Page 8 left column, equation 70 – The selected set of precoders to include the beam set of each user with nonzero elements on the diagonal can be written by equation 70).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Forenza to incorporate the beam set of each users teachings of An-An. The purpose of doing so is shown in the abstract of An-An: “For the later case, it is proved that the beam domain transmission is optimal, and thus the precoder design reduces to the power allocation optimization in the beam domain. Simulation results show that the proposed robust linear precoder designs apply to various mobile scenarios and achieve high spectral efficiency.” (Page 1. top of left column)
Regarding claim 4, Forenza fails to teach,
The skywave massive MIMO beam structure precoding-based transmission method according to claim 3, wherein the beam based channel representation is expressed by multiplying the beam matrix by a beam domain channel vector and the beam domain channel information includes an estimated value for the beam domain channel vector and a variance for an estimated error.
An-An teaches,
PNG
media_image1.png
36
32
media_image1.png
Greyscale
The skywave massive MIMO beam structure precoding-based transmission method according to claim 3, wherein the beam based channel representation is expressed by multiplying the beam matrix by a beam domain channel vector, (Page 3, left column, Equation 4 – The is representative of the received matrix at the base station. It is the channel matrix multiplied by the uplink training matrix summed over the plurality of users.) and the beam domain channel information includes an estimated value for the beam domain channel vector and a variance for an estimated error (Page 3, left column, paragraph below equation 4 – The includes information regarding he variance and estimated value.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Forenza to incorporate the beam matrix and beam based channel representation teachings of An-An. The purpose of doing so is shown in the abstract of An-An: “For the later case, it is proved that the beam domain transmission is optimal, and thus the precoder design reduces to the power allocation optimization in the beam domain. Simulation results show that the proposed robust linear precoder designs apply to various mobile scenarios and achieve high spectral efficiency.” (Page 1. top of left column)
Regarding claim 5, Forenza fails to teach,
The skywave massive MIMO beam structure precoding-based transmission method according to claim 1, wherein a design of the beam domain precoder includes: a design with an optimization objective of maximizing a system and a rate, a design for maximizing a system traversal and the rate, as well as a design for maximizing the system traversal and a rate upper bound.
An-An teaches,
The skywave massive MIMO beam structure precoding-based transmission method according to claim 1, wherein a design of the beam domain precoder includes: a design with an optimization objective of maximizing a system and a rate, a design for maximizing a system traversal and the rate, (Page 6, bottom of left column – Algorithm 1. Page 7, left column – algorithm 2.) as well as a design for maximizing the system traversal and a rate upper bound. (Page 8, left column – algorithm 3.)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Forenza to incorporate the beam domain precoder teachings of An-An. The purpose of doing so is shown in the abstract of An-An: “For the later case, it is proved that the beam domain transmission is optimal, and thus the precoder design reduces to the power allocation optimization in the beam domain. Simulation results show that the proposed robust linear precoder designs apply to various mobile scenarios and achieve high spectral efficiency.” (Page 1. top of left column)
Regarding claim 6, Forenza fails to teach the entirety of claim 6,
An-An teaches,
The skywave massive MIMO beam structure precoding-based transmission method according to claim 1, wherein
(1) in the design with the optimization objective of maximizing the system and the rate, a system and an expression for the rate are updated, by utilizing the beam matrix, a beam mapping matrix of each user, the beam domain precoder of each user and an estimated value for each user, a design problem of a spatial domain precoder is transformed into a design problem of a beam domain precoder, and an iterative design of the beam domain precoder includes following steps:
① initializing the beam domain precoder of each user, to satisfy a power constraint; (Page 6, bottom of left column – initializing to satisfy a power constraint)
②obtaining, by utilizing an MM algorithm framework, a convex substituting function of the system and the rate under a current iteration; (Page 6, bottom of left column - Algorithm 1, step 2 –Calculation according to equation 36. page 4, right column and bottom of left column, equations 19-23, equation 36 which uses equation 22 and contains MM algorithm for precoder design.)
③ solving, by utilizing a Lagrange multiplier means, a convex problem of the current iteration; and (Page 5, left column, equations 30, 31 – Definition of lagrange multiplier. Page 6, bottom of left column - Algorithm 1, steps 3, 4, 5 – Calculations according to equations 40, 41, 37, 46, 47, 49 which include the lagrange multiplier)
repeating, until reaching a preset number of iterations or a precoding convergence steps ② to ③, and obtaining an optimal beam domain precoder of each user; (Page 6, bottom of left column - Algorithm 1 – “Repeat Step 2 through Step 5 until convergence or until a pre-set target is reached”)
(2) in the design for maximizing the system traversal and the rate, the system traversal and the rate expression are updated, by utilizing the beam matrix, the beam mapping matrix of each user, the beam domain precoder of each user, the beam domain channel of each user and beam domain statistical channel information of each user, the design problem of the spatial domain precoder is transformed into the design problem of the beam domain precoder, and the iterative design of the beam domain precoder includes following steps:
①initializing the beam domain precoder of each user, to satisfy the power constraint; (Page 6, bottom of left column – initializing to satisfy a power constraint)
②obtaining, by utilizing an MN algorithm framework, a convex substituting function of the system traversal and the rate under a current iteration; (Page 6, bottom of left column - Algorithm 1, step 2 –Calculation according to equation 36. page 4, right column and bottom of left column, equations 19-23, equation 36 which uses equation 22 and contains MM algorithm for precoder design.)
③solving, by utilizing a Lagrange multiplier means, a convex problem of the current iteration; and (Page 5, left column, equations 30, 31 – Definition of lagrange multiplier. Page 6, bottom of left column - Algorithm 1, steps 3, 4, 5 – Calculations according to equations 40, 41, 37, 46, 47, 49 which include the lagrange multiplier)
repeating, until reaching a preset number of iterations or a precoding convergence, Steps ② to ③, and obtaining an optimal beam domain precoder of each user; (Page 6, bottom of left column - Algorithm 1 – “Repeat Step 2 through Step 5 until convergence or until a pre-set target is reached”)
(3) in the design for maximizing the system traversal and the rate upper bound, the system traversal and the rate upper bound are obtained by utilizing a Johnson's inequality of the system traversal and the rate, an expression includes the beam matrix, the beam mapping matrix of each user, the beam domain precoder, the beam domain statistical channel information of each user, the design problem of the spatial domain precoder is transformed into the design problem of the beam domain precoder, and the iterative design of the beam domain precoder includes following steps:
① initializing the beam domain precoder of each user, to satisfy a power constraint; (Page 6, bottom of left column – initializing to satisfy a power constraint)
② obtaining, by utilizing an MM algorithm framework, a convex substituting function of the system traversal and the rate upper bound under a current iteration; (Page 6, bottom of left column - Algorithm 1, step 2 –Calculation according to equation 36. page 4, right column and bottom of left column, equations 19-23, equation 36 which uses equation 22 and contains MM algorithm for precoder design.)
③ solving, by utilizing a Lagrange multiplier means, a convex problem of the current iteration; and (Page 5, left column, equations 30, 31 – Definition of lagrange multiplier. Page 6, bottom of left column - Algorithm 1, steps 3, 4, 5 – Calculations according to equations 40, 41, 37, 46, 47, 49 which include the lagrange multiplier)
repeating, until reaching a preset number of iterations or a pre coding convergence, Steps ② to ③, and obtaining an optimal beam domain precoder of each user. (Page 6, bottom of left column - Algorithm 1 – “Repeat Step 2 through Step 5 until convergence or until a pre-set target is reached”)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Forenza to incorporate the maximizing the system and rates teachings of An-An. The purpose of doing so is shown in the abstract of An-An: “For the later case, it is proved that the beam domain transmission is optimal, and thus the precoder design reduces to the power allocation optimization in the beam domain. Simulation results show that the proposed robust linear precoder designs apply to various mobile scenarios and achieve high spectral efficiency.” (Page 1. top of left column)
Regarding claim 7, Forenza fails to teach the entirety of claim 7,
An-An teaches,
The skywave massive MIMO beam structure precoding-based transmission method according to claim 1, wherein a transmission of the downlink signal with the user implemented by the beam domain precoder generated according to the design includes following steps:
(1) generating, by multiplying the beam domain precoder with data symbols transmitted by the beam domain precoder, a low dimensional beam domain transmitted signal; (page 2, right column, equations 1 and surrounding text – Hkn is the result of the beam domain precoder multiplied by the data symbols of the beam domain precoder.)
PNG
media_image1.png
36
32
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(2) obtaining, by multiplying the beam mapping matrix with the low dimensional beam domain transmitted signal, a user beam domain transmitted signal; (Page 3, left column, Equation 4, and surrounding text - is the received matrix at the base station. It is the channel matrix multiplied by the plink training matrix which is further summed over the plurality of users.)
PNG
media_image1.png
36
32
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(3) obtaining, by overlaying the beam domain transmitted signal of each user, beam domain transmitted signals of all users; and (Page 3, left column, Equation 4 - represents the received matrix at the base station of the sum of all users.
PNG
media_image1.png
36
32
media_image1.png
Greyscale
(4) generating, by multiplying the beam domain matrix with the beam domain transmitted signals of all users, a spatial domain transmitted signal. (Page 3 left column, equation 5 and surrounding text – The vector of is the spatial domain transmitted signal across all users)
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Forenza to incorporate the beam encoder generation teachings of An-An. The purpose of doing so is shown in the abstract of An-An: “For the later case, it is proved that the beam domain transmission is optimal, and thus the precoder design reduces to the power allocation optimization in the beam domain. Simulation results show that the proposed robust linear precoder designs apply to various mobile scenarios and achieve high spectral efficiency.” (Page 1. top of left column)
Regarding claim 8, Forenza fails to teach,
The skywave massive MIMO beam structure precoding-based transmission method according to claim 6, wherein Step (4) is effectively implemented by utilizing a Chirp-z transform.
An-An teaches,
The skywave massive MIMO beam structure precoding-based transmission method according to claim 6, wherein Step (4) is effectively implemented by utilizing a Chirp-z transform. (Page 3, top of left column - When the number of the antennas at the BS grows large, the Toeplitz covariance matrix can be well approximated by a circulant matrix. Thus, each Vk is closely approximated by a discrete Fourier transform (DFT) matrix.” The chirp-z transform is a generalization of a discrete Fourier transform.)
Note: The examiner interprets for the purposes of this rejection that claim 8 is referencing step(4) from claim 7, instead of claim 6 which is the current claim language.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Forenza to the Chirp-z transform teachings of An-An. The purpose of doing so is shown in the abstract of An-An: “For the later case, it is proved that the beam domain transmission is optimal, and thus the precoder design reduces to the power allocation optimization in the beam domain. Simulation results show that the proposed robust linear precoder designs apply to various mobile scenarios and achieve high spectral efficiency.” (Page 1. top of left column)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
US 20220029734 A1 – Figures 3, 4, 5, 19, 20, 21, 22 – Diagrams of examples of MIMO process for generating precoders from input bit streams in different configurations.
US 20120027111 A1 – Figures 5, 10, 12 paragraphs 0042, 0043 – Discussion of beam matrix vectors.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ryan Crigler whose telephone number is (571)272-9376. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Nicholas A. Jensen can be reached at (571) 270-5443. 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.
/RYAN CRIGLER/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/NICHOLAS A JENSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472
Prosecution Insights