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
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: METHOD AND APPARATUS FOR DETERMINING A BEAMFORMING MATRIX MAXIMIZING WEIGHTED SUM RATE
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the steps” should be “steps” therefor, “the weighted” should be “a weighted” therefor. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the steps” should be “steps” therefor. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: each instance of “the statistical” should be “statistical” therefor. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 6, 14 are objected to because of the following informalities: each instance of “the amplitude” should be “an amplitude” therefor, each instance of “the number” should be “a number” therefor. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 7, 15 is objected to because of the following informalities: each instance of “the number” should be “a number” therefor. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the weighted” should be “a weighted” therefor. 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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: transmitting unit, receiving unit, control unit in claim 9 (and further dependent claims). Examiner notes para. 0028 of the instant specification states: The term "unit" as used herein refers to a software or hardware component.
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 § 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) 1, 7-9, 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by KR 20160066665 A to KIM et al. (“Kim”) [see attached English translation for purposes of citations of Examiner].
As to claims 1, 7-8, see similar rejections to claims 9, 15-16, respectively. The apparatus teaches the methods.
As to claim 9, Kim discloses a base station apparatus for transmitting signals in a communication system (page 2, base station, MIMO wireless communication system), the base station apparatus comprising: a receiving unit (page 5, communication unit) for receiving, from a mobile station, channel feedback information generated based on a channel between a base station and the mobile station (page 4, channel information received from the feedback channel information...terminal); a control unit for determining a beamforming matrix that maximizes the weighted sum rate (WSR) using the channel feedback information (page 13, beamforming unit…received spatial correlation matrix…calculating a sum rate using the SNR (i.e. weighted); page 7, perform scheduling so that the calculated sum rate has a maximum value); and a transmitting unit (page 5, communication unit) for transmitting a signal to the mobile station based on the beamforming matrix (page 13, received spatial correlation matrix…performing two-step beamforming on a scheduled terminal and transmitting data), wherein the channel between the base station and the mobile station consists of a first component corresponding to the channel feedback information (page 4, direction of each terminal is effective channel…channel quality information) and a second component corresponding to a quantization error (page 4, direction of each terminal is effective channel…quantization error size), and wherein the beamforming matrix is determined based on the second component corresponding to the quantization error (page 6, (i.e. first) quantization error size information calculated…. (i.e. second) group a plurality of terminals…according to spatial correlation matrix received form the terminal).
As to claim 15, Kim further discloses the base station apparatus according to claim 9, wherein a covariance matrix of the second component is determined based on the number of antennas of the base station (pages 2-3, a complex Gaussian distribution, which is the unit matrix of covariance. r .sub.k is a rank of the spatial correlation matrix and indicates how spatially the antennas of the N .sub.T base stations 110 in the terminal are separated).
As to claim 16, Kim further discloses the base station apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the base station has a plurality of antennas, and the mobile station has a single antenna (page 2, BS 110 includes N.sub.T antennas, terminals 120 each have…1 antenna; page 5, terminal includes a beamforming receiver; also see page 20 of original document, illustrating multiple antennas of 110, single antennas for each 120).
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) 4-5, 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KR 20160066665 A to KIM et al. (“Kim”) [see attached English translation for purposes of citations of Examiner] in view of CN 104283634 A to ZHENG et al. (“Zheng”) [see attached English translation for purposes of citations of Examiner].
As to claims 4-5, see similar rejections to claims 12-13, respectively. The apparatus teaches the methods.
As to claim 12, Kim does not expressly disclose the base station apparatus according to claim 9, wherein the channel feedback information is received based on a codebook predefined between the base station and the mobile station.
Zheng discloses at para. 0078: the predefined codebook are known for a data transmitting end and a gas receiving end. The codebook can be pre-coding/decoding off-line design, the size is 2 code word, with the dimension number is an array vector of MvI, and M is the number of receiving antenna, the norm of the code word are 1. Specifically, the design proposal of the codebook may be Random Vector quantified random vector quantization (RVQ) code the technology. and the codebook code word number of each code word can be represented by B bits information, B bit information by the receiving end through a feedback channel to the transmitting end. Para. 0003 discloses a base station and terminal.
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the RVQ of Zheng into the invention of Kim. The suggestion/motivation would have been to have robust non-linear precoding (Zheng, para. 0001). Including the RVQ of Zheng into the invention of Kim was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kim.
As to claim 13, Kim does not expressly disclose the base station apparatus according to claim 12, wherein the codebook is defined based on random vector quantization (RVQ).
Zheng discloses at para. 0078: the predefined codebook are known for a data transmitting end and a gas receiving end. The codebook can be pre-coding/decoding off-line design, the size is 2 code word, with the dimension number is an array vector of MvI, and M is the number of receiving antenna, the norm of the code word are 1. Specifically, the design proposal of the codebook may be Random Vector quantified random vector quantization (RVQ) code the technology. and the codebook code word number of each code word can be represented by B bits information, B bit information by the receiving end through a feedback channel to the transmitting end. Para. 0003 discloses a base station and terminal.
Prior to the effective filing date of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the RVQ of Zheng into the invention of Kim. The suggestion/motivation would have been to have robust non-linear precoding (Zheng, para. 0001). Including the RVQ of Zheng into the invention of Kim was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Kim.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3, 6, 10-11, 14 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
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Examiner notes there is a WRITTEN OPINION OF THE INTERNATIONAL SEARCHING AUTHORITY for PCT/KR2022/019170 (attached) which is similar in claim scope to the instant application. However, upon reviewing the prior art and the reasoning given for rejections, Examiner disagrees that the prior art will map to the instant claim limitations. Examiner searched and found an anticipatory prior art for many of the instant claims, as opposed to inventive step as in the WRITTEN OPINION OF THE INTERNATION SEARCHING AUTHORITY. Examiner also found additional prior art to reject claims under U.S.C. 103. In some instances, claims have been indicated as allowable.
US 20110164576 A1 discloses at para. 0012: certain aspects provide an apparatus for wireless communications by an access point. The apparatus generally includes logic for selecting one or more target signal to noise plus interference ratio (SINR) values for one or more spatial streams using a heuristic algorithm, wherein the heuristic algorithm takes into account practical system constraints and modulation and coding scheme (MCS) of the spatial streams, and logic for calculating one or more precoding matrices for the spatial streams for one or more frequency tones by an iterative minimum mean square error (MMSE) beamforming algorithm using the target SINR values.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to OMAR J GHOWRWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
/OMAR J GHOWRWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights