DETAILED FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s filing a Response, dated 08/21/2024.
The instant application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Reissue
For reissue applications filed on or after September 16, 2012, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 are to the current provisions. This reissue application was filed 08/27/2019. Thus, all references to 35 U.S.C. 251 and 37 CFR 1.172, 1.175, and 3.73 made in this application are to the current provisions.
Applicant is reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.178(b), to timely apprise the Office of any prior or concurrent proceed-ing in which Patent No. 9,749,030 is or was involved. These proceedings would include interferences, reissues, reexaminations, and litigation.
Applicant is further reminded of the continuing obligation under 37 CFR 1.56, to timely apprise the Office of any information which is mate-rial to patentability of the claims under consideration in this reissue appli-cation.
These obligations rest with each individual associated with the filing and prosecution of this application for reissue. See also MPEP §§ 1404, 1442.01 and 1442.04.
Applicant is notified that any subsequent amendment to the specification and/or claims must comply with 37 CFR 1.173(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 – 24 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are towards claim language that is no longer present or has been significantly amended. However, the Examiner will respond in general to cover the overall concept and what is specifically claimed.
Applicant argues that Liao does not teach CSI configuration index.
As to this argument, the cited area of Liao, and supporting figures 3 – 5, it is seen that a plurality of CSIs are grouped in “Feedback Type” and again grouped into “Feedback Modes”. All of which have associated numbers and therefore can be interpreted as CSI configuration indexes. Liao states in column 5, lines 56 et seq., “a priority rule based on Feedback node, e.g., priority of feedback Mode 1-0 > 1-1 > 2-0”, i.e., this can be interpreted as Mode 1-0 has a priority of 1, Mode 1-1 has a priority of 1.1, and Mode 2-0 has a priority of 2, where the lower the priority index number, the more important the CSIs of that Mode is. This interpretation reads specifically on the claimed priority indexing based on CSI configurations. Liao goes into a further priority rule as seen in the lower part of Figure 5 with Type 3 > Type 4 > Type 2 > Type 1, also see Figure 6 for other examples. This is regardless of the CC index. Even though CC indexing is used in other embodiments it is not specifically needed in this example and is only an added layer of determination if needed, see Figure 8 and supporting areas of the specification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Liao with Lee because giving priority to a specific message to be received results in the predictable result of that message getting priority to being received first while lower priority messages are not received first. This would also have the predictable result of performing the function of priority which is to give precedence over another. It would also be obvious to one of skill in the art to utilize priority type indexing/ rules because by using such priority rules for CSI reporting, each activated DL CC gets substantially equal opportunity for CSI reporting over time, without favor/disfavor any particular DL CC, (e.g., Liao, 5:31 – 35).
As also seen in the cited areas of the rejection, Liao teaches prioritizing CSI with specific indexes. The Examiner’s “excessive interpretation” still reads on the claim language. An index is merely a number given a specific value or weight, as is indicated by the Applicant’s claims. It does not matter what the weight is, only that in the realm of priority, it is understood that a specific hierarchy is read from each index and an order is given. This is specifically taught by Liao. It is not clear if the Applicant means that the index is “reported” with other the “first CSI”. As claimed, what is reported is a “first CSI” which is different than CSI configuration information. The BRI stems from the claim limitation, “reporting, by the UE, first CSI corresponding to first CSI configuration information”. The term corresponding is very broad and can be interpreted as anything linking the first CSI to the CSI configuration information. It is noted that the CSI configuration information is not specifically reported, only the first CSI. The use of the terms “corresponding” and “associated with” are used throughout the claim and may have different interpretations.
As to Applicant’s other arguments, Applicant's arguments fail to comply with 37 CFR 1.111(b) because they amount to a general allegation that the claims define a patentable invention without specifically pointing out how the language of the claims patentably distinguishes them from the references. Furthermore, applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Applicant does not specifically argue their point while pointing to specific areas cited in the rejection to prove their point. Applicant merely states that the prior art teaches “X” and that is not the same as their invention, with no specific proof.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 251 New Matter Rejection
Claims 6 – 10, and 16 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 251 as being based upon new matter added to the patent for which reissue is sought. The added material which is not supported by the prior patent is as follows:
Independent claims 6 and 16 teach the amended limitations of, “A base station… comprising:… a receiver configured to receive a first CSI feedback corresponding to the first CSI configuration information based on a priority between the first CSI configuration information and the second CSI configuration information, wherein the priority between the first CSI configuration information and the second CSI configuration information is determined based on a fist CSU report type, the first CSI configuration index included in the first CSI configuration information, a second CSI report type, and the second CSI configuration index included in the second CSI configuration information, in case of the first CSI feedback corresponding to the first CSI configuration information and a second CSI feedback corresponding to the second CSI configuration information colliding in time domain”, or the like, emphasis added.
This limitation does not appear in the specification. The collision is based on two base stations attempting to communicate to the UE, as is known in the art, and one is selected based on priority criteria, see cited areas in the rejection. As the claim is written, it would appear that there is only one base station collides with itself. This is not supported by the specification. The sections of the specification describe collisions occurring between 2 or more base stations based on priority/ index. It is unclear as to how CSI configuration information could collide with itself based on the Applicant’s explanation of the invention in the arguments.
All dependent claims are rejected for at least their dependency on the above rejected independent claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 6 – 10, and 16 – 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Independent claims 6 and 16 teaches the amended limitations of, “A base station… comprising:… a receiver configured to receive a first CSI feedback corresponding to the first CSI configuration information based on a priority between the first CSI configuration information and the second CSI configuration information, wherein the priority between the first CSI configuration information and the second CSI configuration information is determined based on a fist CSU report type, the first CSI configuration index included in the first CSI configuration information, a second CSI report type, and the second CSI configuration index included in the second CSI configuration information, in case of the first CSI feedback corresponding to the first CSI configuration information and a second CSI feedback corresponding to the second CSI configuration information colliding in time domain”, or the like, emphasis added.
This limitation does not appear in the specification. The collision is based on two base stations attempting to communicate to the UE, as is known in the art, and one is selected based on priority criteria, see cited areas in the rejection. As the claim is written, it would appear that there is only one base station collides with itself. This is not supported by the specification. The sections of the specification describe collisions occurring between 2 or more base stations based on priority/ index. It is unclear as to how CSI configuration information could collide with itself based on the Applicant’s explanation of the invention in the arguments.
All dependent claims are rejected for at least their dependency on the above rejected independent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 – 5, 8 – 10, 13 – 15, and 18 – 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claims 3 – 5, 8 – 10, 13 – 15, and 18 – 20 recite the limitation of “a CSI report type” in multiple areas. Because of the amendment made by the Applicant in the independent claims, i.e., a first CSI report type” and “a second CSI report type”, it is unclear which report type the Applicant is attempting to claim.
Claims 21 – 24 recite the limitation "the CSI report type". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 16 recites the limitation “a fist CSI report type”. It would appear the Applicant means “first”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1 – 24 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ko et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0076028, hereinafter “Ko”, in view of Liao et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,817,647, herein after “Liao”, in further view of Lee et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,554,281, hereinafter “Lee”.
Claim 1:
A method for transmitting channel state information (CSI), the method comprising:
identifying, by a user equipment (UE), a plurality of CSI configuration information including first CSI configuration information and second CSI configuration information, the first CSI configuration information including first channel measurement resource information, first interference measurement resource information, and a first CSI configuration index, and the second CSI configuration information including second channel measurement resource information, second interference measurement resource information, and a second CSI configuration index; and
Ko disclose a method for transmitting channel state information (CSI), (e.g., Abstract, ¶¶. [0008], [0011] — [0016]). Ko disclose implicitly identifying, by a user equipment, a plurality of CSI configurations, CSI configuration including channel measurement information, interference measurement information, an index for the CSI configuration, and information for a period and an offset, “The UE may transmit the DL channel state measurement results (RI, PMI, CQI, etc.) through the CSI-RS… a UE may generate CSIs for one or more DL cells. Each CSI may include one or more CQIs calculated on the basis of precoding information that is determined by a combination of an RI, a first PMI, a second PMI, and a combination of first and second PMIs of one or more DL carriers”, (Fig. 35, ¶¶ [0596] — [0601]; ¶¶ [0011] — [0016]; [0147] — [0156], Fig. 18, Fig. 19, ¶¶ [0190] — [0194], calculates SINR in consideration of interferences, ¶¶ [0225] — [0226]; “transmission cycle is one time… the offset” Fig. 20, Fig. 21, ¶¶ [0196] — [0197]). Ko further teaches the information being for serving cells, (e.g., ¶¶ 0451 – 0455 et seq., 0541 et seq., 0580 – 0599). It can be further seen that the CSI configuration information includes an CSI configuration index in determining which CSI is dropped, (e.g., 0433 – 0436 et seq., “may be denoted by two different indexes (i.e., I1 and I2). The indexes can also be interpreted as seen in paragraphs 0553 – 0557 et seq., Table 73. Ko also teaches reporting the CSI configuration information that is of higher priority between two CSIs, (e.g., ¶¶ 0011 – 0021, 0445 – 0480).
However, it is not clearly found that Ko teaches a interference measurement resource information. As closely interpreted by the Examiner, and in light of the rejections stated above, Lee teaches multiple interference measurement resource information and resource information for interference and CSI configuration indexing, (e.g., ¶¶ 11:59 et seq., 14:41 – 15:40 et seq., 16:27 – 39, 20:46 – 60 & 28:56 et seq., “In one or more embodiments, the UE may be explicitly provided with a list of at least one interference measurement resource (IM-CSI-RS or IMR) for each type of CSI (or CSI process) that the UE may have to report.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Lee with Ko because “utilizing such an arrangement may also provide substantial flexibility for reporting different types of CSI”, (e.g., Lee, 29:39 – 40 et seq.). Liao specifically teaches a specific priority is given to specific indexes of CSI configuration information with regards to specific cells and in response to a collision, the specific priority given to specific indexes are received while others are dropped, (e.g., 5:36 – 6:30 et seq.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Liao with Lee because giving priority to a specific message to be received results in the predictable result of that message getting priority to being received first while lower priority messages are not received first.
transmitting, by the UE, a first CSI feedback corresponding to the first CSI configuration information based on apriority between the first CSI configuration information and the second CSI configuration information, wherein the priority between the first CSI configuration information and the second CSI configuration information is determined based on a first CSI report type, the first CSI configuration index included in the first CSI configuration information, a second CSI report type, and the second CSI configuration index included in the second CSI configuration information, in response to the first CSI feedback corresponding to the first CSI configuration information and a second CSI feedback corresponding to the second CSI configuration information colliding in time domain,
Ko teaches multiple instances of reporting/ feedback using PUCCH “based” on an index in the case of a collision, (e.g., Fig. 27 – 34 and supporting areas of those figures, & ¶¶ 0011 – 0021, 0172 et seq., 0390 – 0393, 0440 et seq.). It should be noted that the term “based” is very broad and can be interpreted in many different lights. Ko teaches reporting the CSI configuration information that is of higher priority between two CSIs, (e.g., ¶¶ 0011 – 0021, 0445 – 0480). It can be further seen that the CSI configuration information includes an CSI configuration index in determining which CSI is dropped, (e.g., 0433 – 0436 et seq., “may be denoted by two different indexes (i.e., I1 and I2). The indexes can also be interpreted as seen in paragraphs 0553 – 0557 et seq., Table 73.
Liao specifically teaches a specific priority is given to specific indexes of CSI configuration information with regards to specific cells and in response to a collision, the specific priority given to specific indexes are received while others are dropped, (e.g., 5:36 – 6:30 et seq.).
As also seen in Liao, there are specific priorities given to multiple indexes. Liao is directed to,
“a method of determining priority rules for periodic CSI reporting in carrier aggregation. A UE obtains CSI feedback for multiple downlink CCs in a multi-carrier wireless communication network. Each downlink CC is associated with a feedback mode, and each feedback mode comprises a set of feedback types to be reported to a base station at time slots configured by an upper layer. The UE then determines a prioritized downlink CC for CSI reporting based on priority levels of the feedback types to be transmitted for each downlink CC at a given time slot. The UE then transmits the corresponding CSI feedback for the prioritized downlink CC at the given time slot via a feedback channel over a primary uplink CC.”
The cited area of Liao, and supporting figures 3 – 5, it is seen that a plurality of CSIs are grouped in “Feedback Type” and again grouped into “Feedback Modes”. All of which have associated numbers and therefore can be interpreted as CSI configuration indexes. Liao states in column 5, lines 56 et seq., “a priority rule based on Feedback node, e.g., priority of feedback Mode 1-0 > 1-1 > 2-0”, i.e., this can be interpreted as Mode 1-0 has a priority of 1, Mode 1-1 has a priority of 1.1, and Mode 2-0 has a priority of 2, where the lower the priority index number, the more important the CSIs of that Mode is. This interpretation reads specifically on the claimed priority indexing based on CSI configurations. Liao goes into a further priority rule as seen in the lower part of Figure 5 with Type 3 > Type 4 > Type 2 > Type 1, also see Figure 6 for other examples. This is regardless of the CC index. Even though CC indexing is used in other embodiments it is not specifically needed in this example and is only an added layer of determination if needed, see Figure 8 and supporting areas of the specification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Liao with Lee because giving priority to a specific message to be received results in the predictable result of that message getting priority to being received first while lower priority messages are not received first. This would also have the predictable result of performing the function of priority which is to give precedence over another. It would also be obvious to one of skill in the art to utilize priority type indexing/ rules because by using such priority rules for CSI reporting, each activated DL CC gets substantially equal opportunity for CSI reporting over time, without favor/disfavor any particular DL CC, (e.g., Liao, 5:31 – 35). Furthermore, Ko, (¶¶ 0064, 0070, 0118, 0248, 0249), Liao, (Fig. 5), and Lee, (Fig. 7), all can operate in the time domain.
wherein the first CSI feedback is obtained based on the first channel measurement resource information and the first interference measurement resource information included in the first CSI configuration information.
Ko disclose a method for transmitting channel state information (CSI), (e.g., Abstract, ¶¶. [0008], [0011] — [0016]). Ko disclose implicitly identifying, by a user equipment, a plurality of CSI configurations, CSI configuration including channel measurement information, an index for the CSI configuration, “The UE may transmit the DL channel state measurement results (RI, PMI, CQI, etc.) through the CSI-RS… a UE may generate CSIs for one or more DL cells. Each CSI may include one or more CQIs calculated on the basis of precoding information that is determined by a combination of an RI, a first PMI, a second PMI, and a combination of first and second PMIs of one or more DL carriers”, (Fig. 35, ¶¶ [0596] — [0601]; ¶¶ [0011] — [0016]; [0147] — [0156], Fig. 18, Fig. 19, ¶¶ [0190] — [0194], calculates SINR, ¶¶ [0225] — [0226]; “transmission cycle is one time… the offset” Fig. 20, Fig. 21, ¶¶ [0196] — [0197]). Ko further teaches the information being for serving cells, (e.g., ¶¶ 0451 – 0455 et seq., 0580 – 0599). Ko disclose a method for transmitting channel state information (CSI), (e.g., Abstract, ¶¶. [0008], [0011] — [0016]).
However, it is not clearly found that Ko teaches a interference measurement resource information. As closely interpreted by the Examiner, and in light of the rejections stated above, Lee teaches multiple interference measurement resource information and resource information for interference and CSI configuration indexing, (e.g., ¶¶ 11:59 et seq., 14:41 – 15:40 et seq., 16:27 – 39, 20:46 – 60 & 28:56 et seq., “In one or more embodiments, the UE may be explicitly provided with a list of at least one interference measurement resource (IM-CSI-RS or IMR) for each type of CSI (or CSI process) that the UE may have to report.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Lee with Ko and Liao because “utilizing such an arrangement may also provide substantial flexibility for reporting different types of CSI”, (e.g., Lee, 29:39 – 40 et seq.).
Claim 6 teaches similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claims 11 and 16 teach similar limitations as claim 1 with the added limitations of a controller, transceiver, of claim 11 and a transmitter and receiver of claim 16. Ko teaches these and other limitations similarly stated in claim 1, see above cited areas, and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 2:
A method of claim 1, wherein the first CSI feedback comprises at least one of a rank indicator (RI), a subband channel quality indicator (CQI), a wideband CQI, a precoding matrix indicator (PMI), or a CSI-reference signal (RS) resource indicator (CRI).
Ko discloses the first CSI report comprises at least one of a rank indicator (RI), a subband channel quality indicator (CQI), a wideband CQI, a precoding matrix indicator (PMI), or a CSI-reference signal (RS), (e.g., Ko, ¶¶ [0011] — [0016]; [0147] — [0156]; [0218] — [0219]; [0440] - [0444]).
Claims 7, 12, and 17 teach similar limitations as claim 2 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 3:
A method of claim 2, wherein a CSI report type with the wideband CQI has lower priority than a CSI report type with the RI.
Regarding Claim 3, Ko discloses wherein a CSI report type with the wideband CQI has lower priority than a CSI report type with the RI, (e.g., Ko, reporting mode, ¶¶ [0173] — [0180]; third or fourth group has low priority; [0011] — [0016]; [0440] — [0444]).
Claims 8, 13, and 18 teach similar limitations as claim 3 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 4:
A method of claim 2, wherein a CSI report type with the subband CQI has lower priority than a CSI report type with the wideband CQI.
Ko discloses wherein a CSI report type with subband CQI has lower priority than a CSI report type with wideband CQI, (e.g., Ko, Abstract; reporting mode, ¶¶ 0173] — 0180; third or fourth group has low priority; 0011 — 0016; 0440 — 0444).
Claims 9, 14, 19, and 20 teach similar limitations as claim 4 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 5:
The method of claim 1, wherein the first CSI feedback and the second CSI feedback have same priority for the CSI report type, and
wherein the first CSI configuration index is a lowest CSI configuration index among the first CSI configuration index and a second CSI configuration index included in the second CSI configuration.
Ko discloses the above limitation with reference priority, report type and indexes, (e.g., Ko, ¶¶ 0595, “If CSI reporting parts of different serving cells having the same priority PUCCH report type in an arbitrary subframe collide with one another, a CSI of a specific serving cell (i.e., serving cell having high priority according to RRC configuration, for example, a serving cell having the smallest serving cell index) is reported and CSIs of the remaining serving cells may be dropped.”, 0440 — 0444, 0449 et seq., and 0393 et seq.). Ko also teaches this limitation where in the lowest priority for each of CSI (RI, PMI, CQI) is determined and are given specific priorities, (e.g., ¶¶ 0011, “precoding matrix index (PMI)… wherein the CQI is calculated based on precoding information determined by a combination of the first and second PMI; determining, when two or more CSIs collide … low priority and is dropped.” & 0553 – 0557 et seq.). In the event the Applicant does not agree with Ko’s teachings Liao makes up the deficiencies.
Liao specifically teaches a specific priority is given to specific indexes of CSI configuration information with regards to specific cells and in response to a collision, the specific priority given to specific indexes are received while others are dropped, (e.g., 5:36 – 6:30 et seq.).
As also seen in Liao, there are specific priorities given to multiple indexes. Liao is directed to,
“a method of determining priority rules for periodic CSI reporting in carrier aggregation. A UE obtains CSI feedback for multiple downlink CCs in a multi-carrier wireless communication network. Each downlink CC is associated with a feedback mode, and each feedback mode comprises a set of feedback types to be reported to a base station at time slots configured by an upper layer. The UE then determines a prioritized downlink CC for CSI reporting based on priority levels of the feedback types to be transmitted for each downlink CC at a given time slot. The UE then transmits the corresponding CSI feedback for the prioritized downlink CC at the given time slot via a feedback channel over a primary uplink CC.”
The cited area of Liao, and supporting figures 3 – 5, it is seen that a plurality of CSIs are grouped in “Feedback Type” and again grouped into “Feedback Modes”. All of which have associated numbers and therefore can be interpreted as CSI configuration indexes. Liao states in column 5, lines 56 et seq., “a priority rule based on Feedback node, e.g., priority of feedback Mode 1-0 > 1-1 > 2-0”, i.e., this can be interpreted as Mode 1-0 has a priority of 1, Mode 1-1 has a priority of 1.1, and Mode 2-0 has a priority of 2, where the lower the priority index number, the more important the CSIs of that Mode is. This interpretation reads specifically on the claimed priority indexing based on CSI configurations. Liao goes into a further priority rule as seen in the lower part of Figure 5 with Type 3 > Type 4 > Type 2 > Type 1, also see Figure 6 for other examples. This is regardless of the CC index. Even though CC indexing is used in other embodiments it is not specifically needed in this example and is only an added layer of determination if needed, see Figure 8 and supporting areas of the specification. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Liao with Lee because giving priority to a specific message to be received results in the predictable result of that message getting priority to being received first while lower priority messages are not received first. This would also have the predictable result of performing the function of priority which is to give precedence over another. It would also be obvious to one of skill in the art to utilize priority type indexing/ rules because by using such priority rules for CSI reporting, each activated DL CC gets substantially equal opportunity for CSI reporting over time, without favor/disfavor any particular DL CC, (e.g., Liao, 5:31 – 35).
Claims 10, 15, and 20 teach similar limitations as claim 5 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 21:
A base station of claim 16, wherein the CSI report type is set for feedback of an indication corresponding to a CSI-reference signal (RS).
Ko discloses the above limitation with reference to a RS, (e.g., Ko, ¶¶ [0134] – [0139], & [0162] – [0168]).
Claims 22 – 24 teach similar limitations as claim 21 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DAVID E. ENGLAND whose telephone number is (571)272-3912. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00-5:00.
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, Michael Fuelling can be reached on 571-270-1367. 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.
DAVID E. ENGLAND
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3992
/DAVID E ENGLAND/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Conferee:
/Roland Foster/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992
/MICHAEL FUELLING/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992