edward a. yorkgitis, jr. y ecfs

Edward A. Yorkgitis, Jr.

Kelley Drye & Warren LLP Washington Harbour, Suite 400 3050 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20007

Tel: (202) 342-8540 Fax: (202) 342-8451 [email protected]

June 23, 2021

BY ECFS Marlene Dortch, Secretary Federal Communications Commission 45 L Street NE Washington, DC 20554

Re: Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. Notice of Oral Ex Parte Presentation; GN Docket No. 14-177

Dear Ms. Dortch:

On June 21, 2021, Heinrich Heiss, Jagjit Bal, Theresa Olson and Patrick Thompson from Infineon Technologies Americas Corp. (“Infineon”) (“Infineon Representatives”), and the undersigned, spoke by phone with Ethan Lucarelli, Acting Legal Advisor, Wireless and Public Safety to Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel. During the meeting, Infineon expressed its commitment to maximizing coexistence within the 57-64 GHz band (the “60 GHz Band”) among unlicensed devices supporting different technologies and applications and its support for a Commission rulemaking that considers ways to modify the rules for the 60 GHz Band to unleash even more innovation. To that end, the Infineon Representatives noted that Infineon continues to work toward coexistence solutions as part of the 60 GHz Coexistence Study Group (“60CSG”). Infineon also used the meeting to respond to a recent call by certain parties to consider a proposal to revise Section 15.255 of the Commission’s Rules to adopt a condition that any 60 GHz radars subject to a duty cycle limit of 10 percent over any 33 ms period – such as that imposed on 60 GHz radars subject to recent waivers granted to Infineon and others – be subject to an additional condition that any off-time between chirps of less than 2 ms be considered as on-time for purposes of calculating duty cycle compliance.1

In particular, based on recent measurements of compatibility between co-channel 60 GHz radars

and WiGig devices in a variety of configurations, including worst-case configurations and operating parameters, cognizable, albeit minor losses in data rates for WiGig devices might occur only in limited configurations where there is a device separation of 40 cm or less and the radar and communications devices are configured along the same bore-sight and in the same polarization plane. The Infineon Representatives explained, given the range of potential WiGig applications as identified by WiGig

1 See Written Ex Parte Presentation of Facebook, Intel and Qualcomm, GN Docket No. 14-177 et al. (May 10, 2021).

Marlene Dortch June 23, 2021

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP 2

proponents, the likelihood of a 60 GHz radar meeting the conditions required to cause cognizable losses in WiGig data rates is virtually non-existent.2 Accordingly, the Infineon Representatives concluded that the Commission should not propose or consider a more restrictive duty cycle for 60 GHz radars in any future rulemaking as it is not necessary for 60 GHz Band device coexistence but would unnecessarily undermine the maximum potential of the band for 60 GHz radars to serve life-saving and other beneficial applications in the home, on the road, in the office, and within industry.

Pursuant to Section 1.1206(b) of the Commission’s rules, this letter is being filed electronically

along with a copy of the materials Infineon used in the meeting.

Respectfully submitted,

Edward A. Yorkgitis, Jr. Kelley Drye & Warren LLP 3050 K Street, NW, Suite 400 Washington, DC 20007 (202) 342-8540 Counsel to Infineon Technologies Americas Corp.

Enclosure cc: Ethan Lucarelli

2 Infineon plans to shortly present the results of its measurement studies to the 60CSG and looks forward to the feedback from the participants with the goal of refining its study as appropriate.

Enclosure

Considerations of Radar/WiGig

Interference Risk Based on

Latest Measurements

Heinrich Heiss, Jagjit Bal, Patrick Thompson

June 21, 2021

Meeting with the Office of Acting Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel

Infineon Technologies AG

› Top-10 global semiconductor manufacturer with strong footprint in U.S.

– U.S. Headquarters in El Segundo, California– Acquisition of International Rectifier in 2015 – Acquisition of Cypress Semiconductor in 2020

› Strong sensor competence over 40 years supports smarter system solutions at lower power and greater efficiency

› Long track-record in radar chip and system development such as blind-spot detection (24 GHz) and collision avoidance (77 GHz)

› In recent years, development of 60 GHz radar devices targeting industrial, automotive and consumer applications such as in-cabin sensing—detecting children left-behind in hot cars or monitoring drivers‘ physical conditions, proximity and gesture sensing, detecting segmentation, and reading vital signs

› Founding member of the 60 GHz Coexistence Study Group supporting compatibility among 60 GHz spectrum users

› Support for 60 GHz rulemaking that will further enable innovative radar technology useful to make our life safer (e.g. in-cabin sensing, surveillance), greener (e.g. reduce power consumption of street lights) and easier (e.g. smart homes).

22021-06-21 Copyright © Infineon Technologies AG 2021. All rights reserved.

The 60 GHz Band (57-64 GHz) Is a Prime Band for Unlicensed

Radar Applications

› 60 GHz band allows for line-of-sight radars promoting maximum spectrum utilization and

large bandwidths that permit fine spatial recognition

› These characteristics facilitate

– life-saving, motor vehicle in-cabin sensing, such as those enabled by the recent grants of

waiver to Infineon and other manufacturers

– health and wellness monitoring (e.g., reading vital signs, detecting falls by the elderly)

– interactive motion sensing, e.g. gesture sensing in a wide range of potential contexts that

will enhance accessibility and usability of various technologies

– monitoring and surveillance

– material and object classification

– measuring speed of moving objects

› Infineon supports the coexistence of multiple unlicensed technologies in the 60 GHz band


The Current Radar Duty Cycle Supports Many Applications

› The recent waivers Infineon and others received for 60 GHz in-cabin radars adopted a maximum transmit duty cycle of 10% in any 33 ms interval but imposed no minimum transmitter “off time” between successive pulses

– 60 GHz radars require frequent chirps to enable proper resolution of targets’ velocities, a feature critical to many applications

› Qualcomm et al. have contended that changes to the duty cycle for 60 GHz radars are needed to preserve the usefulness of the 60 GHz band for latency-sensitive AR/VR/XR applications

– Qualcomm et al. claim short off-times will unacceptably interrupt WiGig communications and increase their latency but provided no supporting studies

– They would have the FCC treat any radar off-time period between two successive radar pulses that is less than 2 ms as “on time” when assessing duty cycle compliance

› The duty cycle proposed by Qualcomm et al. would generally undermine 60 GHz radar applications, such as life-saving infant detection in motor vehicles, by degrading performance demonstrably while being unnecessary for WiGig coexistence


Testing Whether a More Restrictive Duty Cycle Would

Yield Any Benefits

› Qualcomm et al. have not submitted studies in the record support their request for a tighter duty cycle

› Interference to WiGig should be unlikely due to 60 GHz radar’s low transmission power, antenna directionality (polarization effects), non bore-sight configurations between systems, as well as propagation loss in the 60 GHz band

› Infineon recently completed a series of tests to empirically determine the potential for interference between effectively collocated 60 GHz radars (operating under the conditions set out in the waiver orders) and 60 GHz communications devices operating under the rules

› The testing looked at a variety of configurations

– maximum radar EIRP (at waiver levels): radar signal occupied the entire WiGig channel 2

– radar on times of 0.206 ms and off times ranging between 0.1 and 1.85 ms

– maximum data rate for the WiGig devices in channel 2 of 2.3 Gbps (almost five times higher than the 500 Mbps needed for AR/VR, per Facebook)

– varying separation between WiGig and radar devices of 40, 60, and 100 cm

– varying relative angular positions of 0° (same boresight) and 45°

– varying relative polarization planes of 0° (same polarization), 45°, and 90°


Conclusion for different installation Scenarios

EIRPmax

RadarWiGig

If the Radar signal with EIRPmax interferes with the WiGig antenna exactly in

bore-sight configuration and at distances below 0.6m, we see a moderate

decrease in data rate („DR“). -> likelihood of occurence is almost 0!

If Radar and WiGig system are positioned opposite to each other but

under a spatial offset, we see mainly no DR decrease of WiGig links.

Radar WiGig

EIRPmax

Radar WiGig

If the Radar signal with EIRPmax interferes with the WiGig antenna exactly in

bore-sight configuration but the distance is 0.6m or more, we see mainly

no decrease in DR.

WiGig

WiGig

If Radar and WiGig antennas are tilted to each other, we see mainly

no DR decrease of WiGig links.

< 90°


Copyright © Infineon Technologies AG 2021. All rights reserved. 7

Test Conditions for Radar to WiGig Interference

Considered parameter settings: Google waiver

2021-06-21 restricted

Ton

[ms]Toff

[ms]PRT[ms]

Nc*[#]

Tcycle

[ms]DC[%]

fstart

[GHz]fstop

[GHz]BW

[GHz]Comment

0,206 0,1 0,306 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 2,16

Radar occupies entirety ofWiGig Channel 2

0,206 0,2 0,406 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 2,16

0,206 0,4 0,606 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 2,16

0,206 0,6 0,806 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 2,16

0,206 1,2 1,406 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 2,16

0,206 1,856 2,062 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 2,16

…

t

Frame Time: Tcycle = 33 ms

2

59.4 GHz

61.56 GHz

Ton = 0.206 ms

PRT

BW

= 2

.19

GH

z

f

1

Tchirp sequ = Nc * PRT

Toff

*Nc: # of chirps/frame

Ton = 0.206 ms

1

Toff_frame = 33ms – Nc*PRT

Copyright © Infineon Technologies AG 2021. All rights reserved. 82021-06-21 restricted

Ton

[ms]Toff

[ms]PRT[ms]

Nc[#]

Tcycle

[ms]DC[%]

fstart

[GHz]fstop

[GHz]

Average Reading Rate(Reference: 289 MBPS)

[MBPS]

Average Signal Quality

(max. 10)

Average Reading Rate Decrease

[%]

0,206 0,1 0,306 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 253 8 13,4

0,206 0,2 0,406 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 255 8 12,6

0,206 0,4 0,606 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 256 9 12,2

0,206 0,5 0,706 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 268 9 8,1

0,206 0,6 0,806 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 273 10 6,4

0,206 1,2 1,406 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 271 9 7,3

0,206 1,856 2,062 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 285 10 2,5

Average: 8,9


[MBPS]


(max. 10)


[%]

282 9 3,4

276 9 5,4

281 9 3,9

275 10 5,9

276 10 5,6

276 10 5,4

286 9 2,2

Average: 4,5

d

d

Test 2: d = 60cm

Test 1: d = 40cm


[MBPS]


(max. 10)


[%]

292 10 -1,0

287 10 0,8

293 10 -1,4

289 10 0,1

286 10 1,1

287 10 0,7

286 10 0,9

Average: 0,2

Test 3: d = 100cm

d

Infineon-Defined Worst Case: WiGig – Radar system in Boresight

Position with same polarization plane

Ton

[ms]Toff

[ms]PRT[ms]

Nc[#]

Tcycle

[ms]DC[%]

fstart

[GHz]fstop

[GHz]


[MBPS]


(max. 10)


(tilt = 45°) [%]


(Reference: tilt = 0°)[%]

0,206 0,1 0,306 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 286 10 1,2 13,4

0,206 0,2 0,406 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 283 10 2,2 12,6

0,206 0,4 0,606 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 282 10 2,6 12,2

0,206 0,5 0,706 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 280 10 3,2 8,1

0,206 0,6 0,806 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 282 10 2,5 6,4

0,206 1,2 1,406 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 284 10 1,6 7,3

0,206 1,856 2,062 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 286 10 1,1 2,5

Average: 2,0 8,9

Copyright © Infineon Technologies AG 2021. All rights reserved. 92021-06-21 restricted

WiGig – Radar System in Boresight Position

- radar antenna tilted (different polarization planes)

Test 4: d = 40cm, tilt angle: 45°

Ton

[ms]Toff

[ms]PRT[ms]

Nc[#]

Tcycle

[ms]DC[%]

fstart

[GHz]fstop

[GHz]


[MBPS]


(max. 10)


(tilt = 90°) [%]


(Reference: tilt = 0°)[%]

0,206 0,1 0,306 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 292 10 -0,9 13,4

0,206 0,2 0,406 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 285 10 1,5 12,6

0,206 0,4 0,606 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 289 10 0,0 12,2

0,206 0,5 0,706 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 284 10 1,7 8,1

0,206 0,6 0,806 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 288 10 0,4 6,4

0,206 1,2 1,406 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 287 10 0,6 7,3

0,206 1,856 2,062 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 289 10 0,2 2,5

Average: 0,7 8,9

Test 5: d = 40cm, tilt angle: 90°

45°

d

90°

d

Infineon Analysis of Worst Case Use Case As Defined by Facebook:

VR Glasses with WiGig integrated close to a 60GHz radar device (Soli)

45°

Ton

[ms]Toff

[ms]PRT[ms]

Nc[#]

Tcycle

[ms]DC[%]

fstart

[GHz]fstop

[GHz]


[MBPS]


(max. 10)


[%]

0,206 0,1 0,306 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 290,8 10 -0,59

0,206 0,2 0,406 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 290,8 10 -0,61

0,206 0,4 0,606 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 288,0 10 0,37

0,206 0,5 0,706 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 286,7 10 0,82

0,206 0,6 0,806 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 283,8 10 1,81

0,206 1,2 1,406 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 286,0 10 1,03

0,206 1,856 2,062 16 33 10 59,4 61,56 287,1 10 0,69

Average 0,5

Application Scenario: d = 40cm, j = 45°

Infineon‘s Analysis Shows:

There is „no“ DR reduction measurable even not for very low distances of only 40cm if

the radar device is out of bore-sight to the WiGig antenna.

There is „no“ DR reduction measurable if the WiGig and radar antennas are used under

different polarization angles.

=> Both conditions are given for the AR/VR use-case.

In addition, the DR for the interference tests was 4.6 times higher (2.3 Gbps) than

required for the AR/VR use-case (500 Mbps - Source FB).

45°

AR/VR traffic load: 500 Mbps, 60 fps


WiGig Communication Use Cases …

… and Interference Risk Assessment

# WiGig ApplicationsDistances between

WiGig devices Throughput Overall Latency Interference Risk with UWB Radar

Ultra Short Range (d < 0.2 m)

1 Ultra short range (USR) Communication < 10 cm ~ 10Gbps < 100ms - No radar device likely found in between the links- Radar not in bore-sight configuration- max. WiGig latency not affected2 Ultra short Range Wireless docking ~ 20 cm ~ 10Gbps < 10ms

Mid Range (d < 10 m)3 8K UHD Transfer at smart home < 5 m > 28Gbps < 5ms - FOI separations < 40cm are very unrealistic

- Radar antenna likely tilted to WiGig antenna - Radar unlikely in bore-sight configuration- For AR/VR case see measurements before

4 Data Center inter-rack connectivity < 10 m ~ 20Gbps < 50ms5 Wireless office docking < 3 m ~ 20Gbps < 10ms6 Augmented Reality / Virtual Reality < 5 m ~ 20Gbps < 5ms

Long Range (100 m < d < 300 m)

7 Video/Mass-Data Distribution / VoD- Multicast Streaming/Downloading for dense hotspots

< 100 m > 20Gbps < 100ms- FOI/FOO separations < 40cm are unrealistic

-> distance to radar device > 1m (FSPL)-> outdoor installation (e.g. light post)

- max. latency not affected

8 Mobile Offloading and Multi-Band Operation < 100 m > 20Gbps < 100ms9 Mobile Fronthauling < 200 m ~ 20Gbps

10Wireless Backhauling- Single hop and Multi-hop

< 150 m per hop < 20Gbps < 35ms

11 mmWave distribution network < 300 m < 20Gbps < 2ms

- No radar device close to WiGig receiver-> outdoor installation (e.g. light post)-> distance to radar device > 1m (FSPL)

https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/105120037805401/FinalExParteLucarelliMay10withAtt.pdf


https://ecfsapi.fcc.gov/file/105120037805401/FinalExParteLucarelliMay10withAtt.pdf

Infineon’s Tests Show a More Restrictive Duty Cycle Is Unnecessary

to Protect WiGig Devices – A Solution without a Problem

› The Infineon test results show that a noticeable degradation of WiGig link

performance (signal quality) occurs only in the extremely unlikely case when there

is a device separation of 40 cm or less and the radar and communications devices

are configured along the same bore-sight and in the same polarization plane

– No WiGig data rate reduction is measurable even at 40 cm separation if the

radar device is out of bore-sight to the WiGig antenna

– No WiGig data rate reduction is measurable even at 40 cm separation if the

WiGig and radar antennas are used under different polarization angles

› In short, the risk for harmful interference to WiGig devices with radar off times as

little as 0.1 ms, is extremely low and should be easily addressed by the user of the

unlicensed communications and radar devices through increased separation or

reorientation in the unlikely event it ever occurs


Conclusion and Next Steps

› Infineon supports the commencement of a rulemaking to consider modifications of the Commission’s Rules to ensure that innovators can make maximum use of the 60 GHz Band

› Properly configured testing and likely 60 GHz device applications both confirm there is not a material potential that 60 GHz radars operating at maximum power levels, and with the duty cycle, specified in the waivers would degrade the data rate of WiGig communications devices.

› The Commission should not propose or consider a more restrictive duty cycle for 60 GHz radars as it is not necessary for 60 GHz device coexistence but would unnecessarily undermine the maximum potential of the band

› Infineon continues to work with the 60 GHz Coexistence Study Group (“60CSG”) with the aim of developing a consensus approach to issues likely to be raised in a Commission rulemaking, including duty cycles, bandwidth and channelization, contention-based protocols and other technical and operating parameters


edward a. yorkgitis, jr. y ecfs

Documents