DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application as originally filed on 11/13/2024. The detail office action to the pending claims 1-20 is as shown below.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 9, 11, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over CN116614329 to Tang Jie et al. (“Jie” hereinafter; references are done to a machine translated Chinese language publication of the CN116614329, which is hereby also annexed) in view of US7929563 to Wang et al. (“Wang”) in view of (the comments/references put in parentheses apply to the prior art)
RE claim 1, Jie discloses a method for adaptive transmission with improved channel estimation for ultra-wideband communications (e.g. Figure 6 and page 3 of Jie: the invention provides a method and device aiming to improve accuracy of signal-to-noise ratio estimation, solve effects in channel estimation, and enhance performance of the system), the method comprising: receiving a set of reference signals (e.g. Page 3 of Jie: receiving a detection reference signal and dividing it into groups of signals); determining, using the set of reference signals, estimated channel error information for a channel (e.g. Page 3 of Jie: defining error vector magnitude using the detected refence signals); modifying a Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio (SINR) based on the estimated channel error information (e.g. Page 3 of Jie: estimate Signal-to-Noise Ratio based on the defined error vector magnitude); modifying a channel capacity based on the estimated channel error information (page 3, 6 of Jie: evaluating the link quality of the channel and performing balancing (equilibrium) using techniques such as zero forcing balancing); determining channel state information based on the modified SINR and the modified channel capacity (e.g. Page 3 of Jie: selecting channel estimation methods for channel state estimation); and outputting the channel state information (e.g. Page 3, 6 of Jie: performing equalization to obtain a post-equalization data, after the equilibrium and generate a communication signal).
The subject matter of claim 1 differ from Jie in that Jie does not expressly recite the claimed limitation [… channel state information]. However, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, Jie’s disclosure (e.g. Page 3 of Jie) of selecting channel estimation methods for channel state estimation can be construed Jie does teach or suggest said claimed limitation. In addition, determining channel state information based on the modified SINR is rather well established in the field generally related to systems and/or methods for channel estimation in communication systems. See for example, Wang, (Claims 1, 5, 8, 9 and 10) which describe, to estimating a channel state information for at least one channel of the system based at least in part on the provided training signals. Hence the prior art includes each element/feature as claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. Thus, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method/system disclosed by Jie with the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art or with Wang’s teaching or suggestion for the purpose of estimating channel state information for at least one channel of the MIMO system based at least in part on the provided training signal. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art, such as an individual working in a field related to power and data distribution over network communication systems could have combined the features/elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each feature/method step merely performs the same function as it does separately, with each feature/method step retaining its advantageous function, yielding the predictable result/s. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 1.
RE claim 9, Jie disclose the method of claim 1, wherein outputting the channel state information comprises comparing a scaling parameter to a predefined threshold (e.g. Pages 4, 6 of Jie: comprises comparing the parameter to a predefined threshold).
RE claim 11, Jie discloses an apparatus for adaptive transmission with improved channel estimation for ultra-wideband communications, comprising a processor; and memory storing instructions that, when executed by the processor cause (e.g. Figure 7 and page 3 of Jie: the invention provides a method and device aiming to improve accuracy of signal-to-noise ratio estimation, solve effects in channel estimation, and enhance performance of the system) to: receive a set of reference signals (e.g. Page 3 of Jie: receiving a detection reference signal and dividing it into groups of signals); determine, using the set of reference signals, estimated channel error information for a channel (e.g. Page 3 of Jie: defining error vector magnitude using the detected refence signals); modify a Signal-to-Interference-plus-Noise Ratio (SINR) based on the estimated channel error information (e.g. Page 3 of Jie: estimate Signal-to-Noise Ratio based on the defined error vector magnitude); modify a channel capacity based on the estimated channel error information (page 3, 6 of Jie: evaluating the link quality of the channel and performing balancing (equilibrium) using techniques such as zero forcing balancing); determine channel state information based on the modified SINR and the modified channel capacity (e.g. Page 3 of Jie: selecting channel estimation methods for channel state estimation); and output the channel state information (e.g. Page 3, 6 of Jie: performing equalization to obtain a post-equalization data, after the equilibrium and generate a communication signal).
The subject matter of claim 11 differ from Jie in that Jie does not expressly recite the claimed limitation [… channel state information]. However, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, Jie’s disclosure (e.g. Page 3 of Jie) of selecting channel estimation methods for channel state estimation can be construed Jie does teach or suggest said claimed limitation. In addition, determining channel state information based on the modified SINR is rather well established in the field generally related to systems and/or methods for channel estimation in communication systems. See for example, Wang, (Claims 1, 5, 8, 9 and 10) which describe, to estimating a channel state information for at least one channel of the system based at least in part on the provided training signals. Hence the prior art includes each element/feature as claimed, although not necessarily in a single prior art reference, with the only difference between the claimed invention and the prior art being the lack of actual combination of the elements in a single prior art reference. Thus, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the method/system disclosed by Jie with the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art or with Wang’s teaching or suggestion for the purpose of estimating channel state information for at least one channel of the MIMO system based at least in part on the provided training signal. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art, such as an individual working in a field related to power and data distribution over network communication systems could have combined the features/elements as claimed by known methods, and that in combination, each feature/method step merely performs the same function as it does separately, with each feature/method step retaining its advantageous function, yielding the predictable result/s. It is for at least the aforementioned reasons that the Examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness with respect to claim 11.
RE claim 19, Jie disclose the apparatus of claim 11, wherein outputting the channel state information comprises comparing a scaling parameter to a predefined threshold (e.g. Pages 4, 6 of Jie: comprises comparing the parameter to a predefined threshold).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-8, 10, 12-18, 20 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. See PTO-892 Notice of Reference Cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERHANU TADESE whose telephone number is (571)272-2478. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday (9 - 5 PM EST).
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, Chieh M. Fan can be reached on 571.272.3042. 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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/BERHANU TADESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights