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 Objections
Claims 1 - 13 objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 1, line 14, recite the limitation “at least on vector(s)” should have been “at least one vector(s)”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 2 – 13 are inherently objected as being depended on above objected claim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1 – 9 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,632,154. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 – 9 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claims 1 – 9 of the patent by eliminating the elements and their functions of claims 1 – 9 of the patent. Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to realize that the both invention to provide a method comprising: receiving a signal via a Multiple Input Multiple Output channel, wherein the signal comprises at least one Downlink reference signal; estimating the Multiple Input Multiple Output channel based on the received at least one Downlink reference signal calculating a precoding matrix for a plurality of antenna ports of a network node and a plurality of subbands, wherein the precoding matrix is based on a first codebook, a second codebook and a plurality of combining coefficients, wherein the combining coefficients are arranged for complex scaling/combining of at least one vector(s), wherein the at least on vector(s) is selected from the first codebook and the second codebook, wherein the first codebook comprises at least one or more transmit-side spatial beam components/vectors of the precoding matrix, wherein the second codebook comprises at least one delay component/vector of the precoding matrix; quantizing the combining coefficients per beam of the precoding matrix, wherein each combining coefficient, wherein each combining coefficient
γ
p
,
i
,
j
(
l
)
is a product of three coefficients
a
l
,
p
,
i
,
b
l
,
p
,
i
,
j
,
d
l
,
p
,
i
,
j
and is given by:
γ
p
,
i
,
j
(
l
)
=
a
l
,
p
,
i
b
l
,
p
,
i
,
j
d
l
,
p
,
i
,
j
, where
a
l
,
p
,
i
is a real-valued coefficient representing a common amplitude across all combining coefficients associated with a i-th beam, p-th polarization and l-th layer, wherein
b
l
,
p
,
i
,
j
is a real-valued normalized combining-coefficient representing the amplitude associated with the i-th beam, j-th delay vector, p-th polarization and l-th layer, wherein
d
l
,
p
,
i
,
j
=
e
x
p
j
2
π
n
2
N
;
n
∈
0,1
,
…
,
2
N
-
1
,
N
∈
1,2
,
3,4
is a coefficient to indicate the phase of
γ
p
,
i
,
j
(
l
)
; normalizing the amplitudes of at least some combining coefficients with respect to the largest combining coefficient amplitude and reporting a Channel State Information feedback and/or a Precoder Matrix Indicator and/or a PMI/Rank Indicator, wherein the a PMI/Rank Indicator indicates the precoding matrix for the plurality of antenna ports and subbands to the network node. It has been held that the omission an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App.1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 of the Patent recites all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 2, Claim 2 of the Patent recites all the limitations of claim 2 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 3, Claim 3 of the Patent recites all the limitations of claim 3 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 4, Claim 4 of the Patent recites all the limitations of claim 4 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 5, Claim 5 of the Patent recites all the limitations of claim 5 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 6, Claim 6 of the Patent recites all the limitations of claim 6 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 7, Claim 7 of the Patent recites all the limitations of claim 7 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 8, Claim 8 of the Patent recites all the limitations of claim 8 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 9, Claim 9 of the Patent recites all the limitations of claim 9 of the instant application.
Claims 1 – 9 and 13 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 – 10 of U.S. Patent No. 12,132,541. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 – 9 and 13 of the instant application merely broadens the scope of the claims 1 – 10 of the patent by eliminating the elements and their functions of claims 1 – 10 of the patent. Therefore, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to realize that the both invention to provide a method comprising: receiving a signal via a Multiple Input Multiple Output channel, wherein the signal comprises at least one Downlink reference signal; estimating the Multiple Input Multiple Output channel based on the received at least one Downlink reference signal calculating a precoding matrix for a plurality of antenna ports of a network node and a plurality of subbands, wherein the precoding matrix is based on a first codebook, a second codebook and a plurality of combining coefficients, wherein the combining coefficients are arranged for complex scaling/combining of at least one vector(s), wherein the at least on vector(s) is selected from the first codebook and the second codebook, wherein the first codebook comprises at least one or more transmit-side spatial beam components/vectors of the precoding matrix, wherein the second codebook comprises at least one delay component/vector of the precoding matrix; quantizing the combining coefficients per beam of the precoding matrix, wherein each combining coefficient, wherein each combining coefficient
γ
p
,
i
,
j
(
l
)
is a product of three coefficients
a
l
,
p
,
i
,
b
l
,
p
,
i
,
j
,
d
l
,
p
,
i
,
j
and is given by:
γ
p
,
i
,
j
(
l
)
=
a
l
,
p
,
i
b
l
,
p
,
i
,
j
d
l
,
p
,
i
,
j
, where
a
l
,
p
,
i
is a real-valued coefficient representing a common amplitude across all combining coefficients associated with a i-th beam, p-th polarization and l-th layer, wherein
b
l
,
p
,
i
,
j
is a real-valued normalized combining-coefficient representing the amplitude associated with the i-th beam, j-th delay vector, p-th polarization and l-th layer, wherein
d
l
,
p
,
i
,
j
=
e
x
p
j
2
π
n
2
N
;
n
∈
0,1
,
…
,
2
N
-
1
,
N
∈
1,2
,
3,4
is a coefficient to indicate the phase of
γ
p
,
i
,
j
(
l
)
; normalizing the amplitudes of at least some combining coefficients with respect to the largest combining coefficient amplitude and reporting a Channel State Information feedback and/or a Precoder Matrix Indicator and/or a PMI/Rank Indicator, wherein the a PMI/Rank Indicator indicates the precoding matrix for the plurality of antenna ports and subbands to the network node. It has been held that the omission an element and its function is an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re Karlson, 136 USPQ 184 (CCPA). Also note Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375 (Bd.App.1969); omission of a reference element whose function is not needed would be obvious to one skilled in the art.
Regarding claim 1, Claim 1 of the Patent recites all the limitations of claim 1 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 2, Claim 2 of the Patent recites all the limitations of claim 2 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 3, Claim 3 of the Patent recites all the limitations of claim 3 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 4, Claim 4 of the Patent recites all the limitations of claim 4 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 5, Claim 5 of the Patent recites all the limitations of claim 5 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 6, Claim 6 of the Patent recites all the limitations of claim 6 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 7, Claim 7 of the Patent recites all the limitations of claim 7 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 8, Claim 8 of the Patent recites all the limitations of claim 8 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 9, Claim 9 of the Patent recites all the limitations of claim 9 of the instant application.
Regarding claim 13, Claim 10 of the Patent recites all the limitations of claim 13 of the instant application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 – 12 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 JAISON JOSEPH whose telephone number is (571)272-6041. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 - 4.
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, Sam K Ahn can be reached on 571 272 3044. 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.
JAISON . JOSEPH
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2633
/JAISON JOSEPH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2633