DETAILED ACTION
This Office Action is in response to the application as originally filed on 01/17/2025.
Status of the Claim:
Original claim 1 is cancelled.
New claims 2-21 has been added.
The detail office action to the pending claims 2-21 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 .
Response to Amendment
Receipt is acknowledged of Applicant’s request for entry of the Preliminary Amendment filed 2/20/2025, prior to the examination on the merits. By this amendment, the Claim has been amended by cancelling claim 1 and adding New claims 2-21. The Applicant Remarks (see Page 8) filed along with the Preliminary Amendment advises that “claim 1 is canceled without prejudice or disclaimer.”
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 2, 15, 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019/057094 to Yang e al. (“Yang”) in view of US2015/0349863 to El Ayach et al. (“El Ayach”) (The remarks and/or references placed in the parentheses apply to the prior art)
RE claims 2, 15 and 21, Yang discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a wireless device (110, 1110), a method for wireless communications at a wireless device (e.g. Fig. 12), and a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing code for wireless communications at a wireless device (e.g. Para [00116] of Yang), the code comprising instructions executable by one or more processors (e.g. Para [00116] of Yang) to: comprising: one or more memories (1114); and one or more processors (1112) coupled with the one or more memories (e.g. Fig. 11 of Yang, illustrates the one or more processors coupled with the one or more memories) and configured to cause the wireless device to (e.g. para [00119]: cause the wireless device to): provide, to a central processing unit (CPU) within the wireless device, sensor information regarding a physical folding configuration (e.g. Fig. 11, paras [00133], [00134] of Yang: transceiver 1116 of the wireless communication apparatus may receive signaling information, from network apparatus 1120, and provide the signaling information to processor 1112 (i.e. within itself), wherein the information contains SRS resource mappings of a plurality of antenna ports (i.e. identified physical configuration)); generate, at the CPU, a set of beamforming beam weights corresponding to the physical folding configuration based at least in part on the sensor information (e.g. Yang, Fig. 12, paras [00138]-[00139], [0148]-[00153]: generating, by a processor of a user equipment, a codebook comprising a plurality of precoders (precoding weights) corresponding to the plurality of antenna ports (i.e. identified physical configuration) of the user equipment, based on the signaling information); and determine one or more antennas of the wireless device for the wireless device to use for a subsequent communication with a network device in accordance with the set of beamforming beam weights (e.g. Yang, Fig. 12, paras, [00138]-[00139], [0148]-[00153]: determines plurality of permutation matrices which may correspond to respective one or more antenna placement scenarios of one or more codewords for communication with a network device in accordance with the set of candidate precoders (precoding weights)).
The subject matter of claims 1, 15, 21 differ from the teachings of Yang in that Yang does not expressly recite the term “beamforming beam weights”, as recited by the claims. However, given the broadest reasonable interpretation, in light of the specification as it would be interpreted by one of ordinary skill in the art, Yang’s disclosure of generating a codebook comprising a plurality precoding weights (beam weights) for subsequent communication with the network device, as taught by Yang, can be construed that Yang clearly teaches or suggests said term. The term “beamforming beam weights” in the field related to identifying physical configuration of a wireless device by accessing predetermined codebook is rather firmly established. For example, El Ayach (e.g. Fig. 6, paras [0061], [ 0069]) teaches or fairly suggests a User equipment (UE 602) for configuring as set of beamforming weights (antenna weights) to steer antenna sub-arrays in the desired direction. Additionally or alternatively, the UE determining a mapping between physical orientation changes and beamforming weight configurations from a beamforming codebook that has previously mapped the determined first set of antenna weights and a detected physical orientation change to the second set of antenna weights. 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 a person of ordinary skill in the art (POSITA) to modify the method/system disclosed by Yang with the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art or with El Ayach’s teaching or suggestion to specify/show precoding weights or beamforming weights are coefficients applied to the elements of an antenna array to control the directionality of the signal transmission or reception (e.g. El Ayach (e.g. Fig. 6, paras [0061], [ 0069]) Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art, such as an individual working in a field related to wireless communications, 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 claims 1, 15 and 21.
Objected but Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3-14 is objected to as being directly or indirectly dependent upon rejected Independent claim 2 but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of its independent claim, its base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 16-20 are objected to as being directly or indirectly dependent upon rejected Independent claim 15 but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of their independent claims, their base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure are (See the attached Notice of References Cited (PTO-892)). These prior arts are considered pertinent because they relate generally to electronic circuits, and, in particular in particular implementations, to phase-locked loop circuits.
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 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 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.
/BERHANU TADESE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632
Prosecution Insights