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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/07/2025 was filed in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 20 objected to because of the following informalities:
Applicant is advised that should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 20 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof, as both claims are drawn to a device, i.e. a processor configured to perform the same function. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-9 and 11-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Han et al. (WO 2024016252 A1 and Han hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 1, Han discloses a user equipment (UE) (Figure 1, element 106), comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to (i.e. The processor 804 may also use the computer-readable medium 806 and the memory 805) Para [0078]: receive communications from a set of transmission and reception points (TRPs) (See Figures 1, element 104, 108; see Figures 2 and 5) concurrently (i.e. In a MIMO system, spatial multiplexing may be used to transmit multiple different streams of data, also referred to as layers, simultaneously (i.e. concurrently) on the same time-frequency resource.) Para [0042] at a first panel and a second panel (i.e. testing demodulation performance for an FR2 UE with multiple receive panels are described) Para [0046], wherein the set of TRPs comprises a first TRP and a second TRP (Figures 1, 2, and 5; i.e. as shown in FIG. 2, a rank-2 (i.e., including 2 data streams) spatial multiplexing transmission on a 2x2 MIMO antenna configuration will transmit two data streams via two transmit antennas 204. The signal from each transmit antenna 204 reaches each receive antenna 208 along a different signal path 210.); identify a requirement for a minimum angular separation between the first TRP and the second TRP (i.e. these candidate pairs can be narrowed down by determining whether the isolation between the respective pair of beams is greater than a suitable minimum threshold isolation) Para [0062]; and determine a complementary cumulative distribution function (i.e. The test apparatus may then perform the isolation of the branches, e.g., utilizing an inverse channel matrix approach as detailed in 3GPP TS 38.101-3. Once the isolation is determined, the test apparatus may verify that the isolation is greater than the above-described minimum threshold isolation value (Examiner asserts CCDF measures the probability that the value is above the threshold).) Para [0074] for effective isotropic sensitivity (EIS) (i.e. determining the EIS at which the throughput exceeds a given threshold) Para [0081] based on the requirement for the minimum angular separation between the first TRP and the second TRP (i.e. the test apparatus may first determine whether the isolation between two polarizations within one beam is greater than a first minimum threshold isolation) Para [0074].
Regarding Claim 11, Han suggests all the limitations of claim 1 in method form rather than device form. Further Han discloses a method (i.e. FIG. 3, aspects of an exemplary test apparatus and methods for testing demodulation performance for an FR2 UE with multiple receive panels are described.) Para [0046]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to the limitations of claim 11.
Regarding Claim 20, Han suggests all the limitations of claim 1. Further Han discloses a processor for wireless communication, comprising: at least one controller coupled with at least one memory (i.e. The test apparatus 800 may include a processing system 814 having one or more processors 804. Examples of processors 804 include microprocessors, microcontrollers…) Para [0076]. Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 applies equally as well to the limitations of claim 20.
Regarding Claim 2 and Claim 13, Han discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectfully as discussed above. Further Han discloses the complementary cumulative distribution function is a conditional complementary cumulative distribution function (i.e. Returning to FIG. 6, at block 614, the test apparatus may perform an isolation check across dual polarizations and across dual beams. For example, the test apparatus may first determine whether the isolation between two polarizations within one beam is greater than a first minimum threshold isolation… To determine the isolation between polarizations of a beam or between beams, the test apparatus may transmit a test signal in the desired test direction with a pre-defined downlink power level. The test apparatus may then perform the isolation of the branches, e.g., utilizing an inverse channel matrix approach as detailed in 3GPP TS 38.101-3. Once the isolation is determined, the test apparatus may verify that the isolation is greater than the above-described minimum threshold isolation value (Examiner asserts CCDF measures the probability that the value is above the threshold).) Para [0074] .) Para [0074].
Regarding Claim 3 and Claim 14, Han discloses all the limitations of claims 2 and 13, respectfully as discussed above. Further Han discloses the conditional complementary cumulative distribution function is used to set an EIS requirement, and the EIS requirement is less than a threshold value (i.e. At block 610, the set of candidate pairs can be further narrowed down by determining whether each respective pair passes a reference receive sensitivity (REFSENS) test. The REFSENS power level is defined as the EIS level at the UE antenna in the RX beam peak directions at which the throughput meets or exceeds specified throughput requirements for the reference measurement channel (Examiner asserts that if the measured throughput meets or exceeds the required target for the reference measurement channel at a given signal level, the Equivalent Isotropic Sensitivity (EIS) is considered equal to or better (lower in dBm) than the required threshold value). The REFSENS test may require the UE to reach a target throughput with a predefined modulation and coding scheme with a specified REFSENS power level.) Para [0062].
Regarding Claim 4 and Claim 15, Han discloses all the limitations of claims 2 and 13, respectfully as discussed above. Further Han discloses the conditional complementary cumulative distribution function comprises a maximum interference requirement for the set of TRPs (i.e. a signal generator may generate a desired (i.e. maximum) signal and noise (i.e. interference) 302) Para [0046].
Regarding Claim 5 and Claim 16, Han discloses all the limitations of claims 1 and 12, respectfully as discussed above. Further Han discloses the complementary cumulative distribution function is based on an exclusion zone (i.e. these candidate pairs can be narrowed down by determining whether the isolation between the respective pair of beams is greater than a suitable minimum threshold isolation, and eliminating as a candidate pair any pair that does not meet this minimum threshold isolation (i.e. exclusion zone).) Para [0062].
Regarding Claim 6 and Claim 17, Han discloses all the limitations of claims 5 and 16, respectfully as discussed above. Further Han discloses the exclusion zone is determined by an exclusion angle (i.e. the top 5 beam directions are selected as candidates for both the first and second AoA (i.e. Angle of Arrival), these scans result in a total of 25 candidate pairs of AoAs. As an optional step 608, these candidate pairs can be narrowed down by determining whether the isolation between the respective pair of beams is greater than a suitable minimum threshold isolation, and eliminating as a candidate pair any pair that does not meet this minimum threshold isolation (i.e. exclusion zone).) Para [0062].
Regarding Claim 7 and Claim 18, Han discloses all the limitations of claims 6 and 17, respectfully as discussed above. Further Han discloses the exclusion angle is signaled by the UE (Figure 5; i.e. testing procedure to identify two AoAs for a demodulation performance test… testing procedures only need UE reporting (i.e. signaling) of RSRP/RSARP values within one beam, between two polarizations. Therefore, further aspects of this disclosure provide inter-beam and intra-beam characterization. Here, inter-beam refers to the correlation between two beams (e.g., AoA1 and AoA2) (i.e. Angle of Arrival)) Para [0053] and (i.e. The test apparatus may then enable periodic RSRP/RSRPB reporting from the UE/DUT) Para [0060].
Regarding Claim 8 and Claim 19, Han discloses all the limitations of claims 6 and 17, respectfully as discussed above. Further Han discloses a size of the exclusion zone increases as the exclusion angle increases (i.e. That is, at each grid point 402, the test apparatus may record the RSRP/RSRPB reported by the UE/DUT for each polarization. The test apparatus may then sort or rank the grid points based on the sum of 4 RSRP/RSRPB values per grid point (i.e., 2 each for each polarization) . The test apparatus may then select a set (e.g., 5, or any suitable number) of candidate RX beam peak directions according to their ranking) Para [0060].
Regarding Claim 9, Han discloses all the limitations of claim 5 as discussed above. Further Han discloses the exclusion zone indicates a set of directions for which an angle between any direction in the set of directions and a direction of a first TRP is less than an exclusion angle (i.e. The test apparatus may then find a set (e.g., a plurality) of candidate RX beam peak directions by employing a 3D RSRP/RSRPB scan over a given set of search grid points. That is, at each grid point 402, the test apparatus may record the RSRP/RSRPB reported by the UE/DUT for each polarization. The test apparatus may then sort or rank the grid points based on the sum of 4 RSRP/RSRPB values per grid point (i.e., 2 each for each polarization) . The test apparatus may then select a set (e.g., 5, or any suitable number) of candidate RX beam peak directions according to their ranking) Para [0060] and from which the second TRP is excluded (i.e. the top 5 beam directions are selected as candidates for both the first and second AoA (i.e. Angle of Arrival), these scans result in a total of 25 candidate pairs of AoAs. As an optional step 608, these candidate pairs can be narrowed down by determining whether the isolation between the respective pair of beams is greater than a suitable minimum threshold isolation, and eliminating as a candidate pair any pair that does not meet this minimum threshold isolation.) Para [0062].
Regarding Claim 11, Han discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above. Further Han discloses wherein the EIS is determined for a best beam of the first panel and for a best beam of the second panel (i.e. The test apparatus may then find a set (e.g., a plurality) of candidate RX beam peak directions by employing a 3D RSRP/RSRPB scan over a given set of search grid points. That is, at each grid point 402, the test apparatus may record the RSRP/RSRPB reported by the UE/DUT for each polarization. The test apparatus may then sort or rank the grid points based on the sum of 4 RSRP/RSRPB values per grid point (i.e., 2 each for each polarization) . The test apparatus may then select a set (e.g., 5, or any suitable number) of candidate RX beam peak directions according to their ranking (i.e. best beam)) Para [0060].
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.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Han et al. (WO 2024016252 A1 and Han hereinafter) in view of Yang et al. (US 20230223980 A1 and Yang hereinafter).
Regarding Claim 10, Han discloses all the limitations of claim 1 as discussed above.
Han doesn’t explicitly teach
wherein the EIS is expressed in dB.
However in a similar field of endeavor Yang suggests
wherein the EIS is expressed in dB (i.e. The transceiver may satisfy EIS (Effective Isotropic Sensitivity) at 60th-percentile CCDF (complementary cumulative distribution function) on a second channel bandwidth…Based on the second channel bandwidth being 100 MHz, the 60th-percentile CCDF may be −71.2 dBm.) Para [0226-0227].
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Han with the method suggested by Yang. The motivation would be to improve coverage and system capacity, see Yang at [0003].
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Coutts et al. (US 20180183529 A1) “Characterizing Antenna Patterns” (June 28, 2018) suggests sample points of receive power or transmit power may be determined by the required antenna pattern angular resolution. As one skilled in the art will understand, angular resolution may be the minimum angular separation at which two equal targets can be separated when at the same range. Angular resolution may be limited by the restricted aperture width of the antenna. Determining the angular resolution of both antenna 333 and antenna 120 may enable more accurate measurement of the antenna pattern produced by antenna 120.
Yang et al. (US 20230224016 A1) “STANDARD FOR RECEPTION OF A UE” (July 13, 2023) is directed to a transceiver is configured to satisfy a Radio Frequency (RF) requirement, wherein the RF requirement includes at least one of REFSENS (Reference Sensitivity) and EIS (Effective Isotropic Sensitivity) spherical coverage.
Kakishima et al. (US 20210314062 A1) “USER TERMINAL AND RADIO COMMUNICATION METHOD” (October 7, 2021) is directed to user terminal according to one aspect of the present disclosure includes a receiving section that receives an instruction to transmit a reference signal for forming spherical coverage, and a transmitting section that transmits the reference signal, forming the spherical coverage, based on the transmission instruction. According to one aspect of the present disclosure, the formation of spherical coverage can be properly controlled.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Iyonda L. Lewis whose telephone number is (571)272-4440. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:00pm.
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, Alison Slater can be reached at (571) 270-0375. 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.
/IYONDA L LEWIS/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Iyonda.Lewis@USPTO.gov
/Alison Slater/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2647
Prosecution Insights