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 .
Claims 21-40 are pending.
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)(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.
Claim(s) 21-22, 26, 29, 35-38, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Uesaka et al., US 2026/0230123, (“Uesaka”).
Independent Claims
Regarding claim 21, Uesaka teaches “An apparatus (Fig. 11, target UE, Fig. 16) comprising:
at least one processor (Fig. 16, processing circuitry 1102); and
at least one memory (Fig. 16, memory 1110) storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to:
receive, from a network, a configuration for multi-user multiple input multiple output (Fig. 11, step S122; paragraph nos. 0213, 0259 disclose that the UE is a MU-MIMO UE and receives data channel configuration from the serving NW node; see paragraph nos. 0262-0269 for the different types of information included in the received configuration); and
apply at least one default setting for at least one parameter for a multi-user multiple input multiple output advanced receiver, based on the configuration for multi-user multiple input multiple output” (Fig. 11, step S124; paragraph nos. 0218, 0219, 0273, 0277, 0280 disclose that the UE selects or fallbacks to a E-MMSE-IRC advanced receiver algorithm depending on certain conditions; the default setting of at least one parameter (such as maximum modulation order – see paragraph no. 0266) may be applied when the UE fallbacks/defaults to the E-MMSE-IRC advanced receiver algorithm – e.g., the “default” setting could be, e.g., any one of the 64QAM, 256 QAM, or 1024 QAM modulation order settings sent by the network in the received configuration (see paragraph no. 0266) and applied by the UE as part of the fallback receiver algorithm as the term “default” is broadly construed in accordance with BRI).
Regarding independent claims 37 and 40, these independent claims are corresponding apparatus (i.e., network side) and method claims of the apparatus claim 11 and recite similar subject matter. As such, the rationale behind the above rejection of claim 21 applies with equal force to these independent claims and as further amplified below to highlight the minor differences between the claims.
Regarding further independent claim 37, see Fig. 16 (network node 1200) for the claimed structural elements of the claim.
Dependent Claims
Regarding claims 22 and 38, Uesaka teaches “wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: receive, from the network, a configuration for the at least one parameter for the multi-user multiple input multiple output advanced receiver” (paragraph nos. 0261-0269).
Regarding claim 26, Uesaka teaches “wherein the configuration for the at least one parameter for the multi-user multiple input multiple output advanced receiver is received from the network via radio resource control signaling” (paragraph no. 0260).
Regarding claim 29, Uesaka teaches “wherein the configuration for the at least one parameter for the multi-user multiple input multiple output advanced receiver is received from the network via explicit radio resource control based network assistant signaling” (paragraph nos. 0260, 0273).
Regarding claim 35, Uesaka teaches “wherein the at least one default setting for the at least one parameter for the multi-user multiple input multiple output advanced receiver is known to the apparatus following receipt of the configuration for multi-user multiple input multiple output” (see, e.g., paragraph nos. 0266, 0280 which disclose using one of the modulation orders signaled by the network in the configuration for the E-MMSE-IRC advanced receiver algorithm).
Regarding claim 36, Uesaka teaches “wherein the at least one default setting for the at least one parameter for the multi-user multiple input multiple output advanced receiver is applied in response to receipt of the configuration for multi-user multiple input multiple output, without receipt or use of radio resource control based network assistant signaling for configuration of the multi-user multiple input multiple output advanced receiver” (paragraph nos. 0114, 0260).
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.
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) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uesaka.
Regarding claim 24, Uesaka does not teach “wherein the instructions, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the apparatus at least to: determine to apply at least one non-default setting for one or more of the at least one parameter for the multi-user multiple input multiple output advanced receiver, in response to the one or more of the at least one parameter being present within the configuration for the at least one parameter for the multi-user multiple input multiple output advanced receiver.” However, this is an obvious modification.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Uesaka by applying a non-default setting for the fallback E-MMSE-IRC advanced receiver in order to allow the UE to change a parameter setting (e.g., default 64QAM) to a different parameter setting (e.g., non-default 256QAM), based on the channel condition (e.g., measured channel BLER) between the UE and the network, as suggested by Uesaka in paragraph no. 0280.
Claim(s) 30-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uesaka in view of applicant’s admitted prior art (“AAPA”), as disclosed in paragraph nos. 0028-0043 of applicant’s specification.
Regarding claim 30, Uesaka does not teach but the AAPA teaches “wherein the at least one parameter is associated with a valid state or a valid assumption” (paragraph nos. 0038, 0040-0043). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Uesaka by incorporating the teachings of the AAPA to facilitate the implementation of network assistant signaling for UE’s supporting advanced receiver for MU-MIMO, as suggested by the AAPA in paragraph no. 0038 of applicant’s specification.
Regarding claim 31, Uesaka does not teach but the AAPA teaches “wherein the at least one parameter is associated with an invalid state or an invalid assumption” (paragraph nos. 0038, 0040-0043). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Uesaka by incorporating the teachings of the AAPA to facilitate the implementation of network assistant signaling for UE’s supporting advanced receiver for MU-MIMO, as suggested by the AAPA in paragraph no. 0038 of applicant’s specification.
Regarding claim 32, Uesaka does not teach but the AAPA teaches “wherein the at least one parameter is associated with: a precoding and resource allocation of at least one co-scheduled user equipment being the same as a precoding and resource allocation of the apparatus, in a precoding resource block group level grid configured to the apparatus when there are two or four consecutive resource blocks associated with a precoding resource block group, wherein a demodulation reference signal sequence of the at least one co-scheduled user equipment is the same as a demodulation reference signal sequence of the apparatus, and wherein the at least one co-scheduled user equipment is in a first code division multiplexing group, and the apparatus is in a second code division multiplexing group different from the first code division multiplexing group” (paragraph no. 0041). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Uesaka by incorporating the teachings of the AAPA to facilitate the implementation of network assistant signaling for UE’s supporting advanced receiver for MU-MIMO, as suggested by the AAPA in paragraph no. 0038, 0040 of applicant’s specification.
Regarding claim 33, Uesaka does not teach but the AAPA teaches “wherein the at least one parameter is associated with: at least one demodulation reference signal power boosting configuration of a respective at least one co-scheduled user equipment being the same as a demodulation reference signal power boosting configuration of the apparatus, wherein a demodulation reference signal sequence of the at least one co-scheduled user equipment is the same as a demodulation reference signal sequence of the apparatus” (paragraph no. 0042). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Uesaka by incorporating the teachings of the AAPA to facilitate the implementation of network assistant signaling for UE’s supporting advanced receiver for MU-MIMO, as suggested by the AAPA in paragraph no. 0038, 0040 of applicant’s specification.
Regarding claim 34, Uesaka does not teach but the AAPA teaches “wherein the at least one parameter is associated with: at least one time domain resource assignment for physical downlink shared channel symbols of a respective at least one co-scheduled user equipment being the same as a time domain resource assignment for physical downlink shared channel symbols of the apparatus, wherein a demodulation reference signal sequence of the at least one co-scheduled user equipment is the same as a demodulation reference signal sequence of the apparatus” (paragraph no. 0043). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of this claimed invention to modify Uesaka by incorporating the teachings of the AAPA to facilitate the implementation of network assistant signaling for UE’s supporting advanced receiver for MU-MIMO, as suggested by the AAPA in paragraph no. 0038, 0040 of applicant’s specification.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 23, 25, 27-28, and 39 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.
The prior art of record does not teach or fairly suggest the claim limitations recited in each of these dependent claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the abstracts of US 2025/0039854 and US 2024/0291589 which all relate to UE advanced MU-MIMO receivers.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to WON TAE C. KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1812. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Edan Orgad can be reached at (571)272-7884. 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.
/WON TAE C KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414
Prosecution Insights