DETAILED FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is responsive to Applicant’s Response, dated 10/09/2024.
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 08/28/2019. 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 filed 02/15/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues similar arguments that were already addressed in the final office action 11/15/2023. Applicant continue to argue that Ko does not teach a one serving cell, see remarks.
As to this argument, Applicant’s cites their application that clearly teaches multiple cells in their interpretation and explanation of their claims,
For example, as described in the present application, a serving cell can provide CSI Config #1 to measure in consideration of cell #1, cell #2, and cell #3, and provide CSI Config #2 to measure in consideration of cell #1, cell #2, and cell #4. Thereafter, the terminal measures a first channel state regarding cell #1, cell #2, and cell #3 based on the CSI Config #1 and a second channel state regarding cell #1, cell #2, and cell #4 based on the CSI Config #2. When the terminal determines that the second channel state is better than the first channel state, the terminal can report CSI corresponding to Config #2. Accordingly, it can be determined which cells to use to perform CoMP.”
As previously stated, Ko specifically teaches the ability to identify multiple different CSI configuration information for one cell, i.e., PMI, CQI, RI, during its determination as to what CSI configuration information it will use. It is unclear if the Applicant means to claim that all the information is identified at once or multiple different types of CSI configurations, i.e., PMI1, PMI2, PMI#. Furthermore, the prior art teaches different formats that are used in identifying the configuration information. Furthermore, Ko specifically incorporates by reference the standards from 3GPP, (e.g., 3GPP TS36.211, 3GPP TS36.213), see Ko ¶¶ 0153 and 0156). The Examiner has previously supplied 3GPP TS36.213 which specifically states that the UE identifies a plurality of CSI configuration information for a specific cell, e.g., Id. pp. 51 – 53. It is also seen that Ko, and the 3GPP standards that are incorporated by reference, specifically teach “types” of information, i.e., 3GPP TS36.213, pp. 52 et seq. and Ko, table 7). The cited areas specifically states the word “Type”. It is understood by one of skill in the art that a CSI configuration can have the parameters of PMI, CQI, RI for one service cell, i.e., a plurality of different CSI configurations for A serving cell. This is clearly stated in ¶[0012],
“[0012] In another aspect of the present invention, a user equipment (UE) for transmitting channel status information (CSI) of downlink multi-carrier transmission includes a reception module for receiving a downlink signal from an eNode B; a transmission module for transmitting an uplink signal to the eNode B; and a processor for controlling the user equipment (UE) including the reception module and the transmission module. The processor includes generating the CSI including at least one of a rank indicator (RI), a first precoding matrix index (PMI), a second PMI and a channel quality indicator (CQI) for one or more DL carriers, wherein the CQI is calculated based on precoding information determined by a combination of the first and second PMIs, determining, when two or more CSIs collide with one another in one uplink (UL) subframe of one UL carrier, a CSI to be transmitted on the basis of priority, transmitting, through the transmission module, the determined CSI over a UL channel, wherein the CSI is classified into a first group including an RI, a second group including a wideband (WB) first PMI, a third group including a WB CQI, and a fourth group including an SB CQI, and in association with the priority, if a CSI of the first group or a CSI of the second group collides with a CSI of the third group or a CSI of the fourth group, the CSI of the third or fourth group has low priority and is dropped.”
It is further seen in Liao in column 4 et seq., (i.e., 4:47 et seq, “In order for the eNodeB to receive complete CSI feedback information, different CSI feedback modes are defined. FIG. 4 illustrates different CSI feedback modes defined in a 3GPP LTE system. Table 401 of FIG. 4 illustrates the relationship between feedback modes and feedback types. For example, feedback mode 1-0 indicates wideband CQI and no PMI, feedback mode 1-1 indicates wideband CQI with single PMI, feedback mode 2-0 indicates subband CQI and no PMI, and feedback mode 2-1 indicates subband CQI and single PMI. Table 402 of FIG. 4 illustrates the detailed feedback types defined for each feedback mode. Feedback mode 1-0 contains feedback types 3 and 4, feedback mode 1-1 contains feedback types 3/5 and 2/2b/2c, feedback mode 2-0 contains feedback types 3, 4, and 1, and feedback mode 2-1 contains feedback types 3/6, 2, 1, 2a(2b), and 2b(1a) (e.g., 2a and 2b if PTI=0; or 2b and 1a if PTI=1). For each feedback mode, its defined feedback types are reported at different time slots so that the eNodeB receives complete CSI feedback information over time. For example, for feedback mode 1-0, feedback type 3 (RI) and feedback type 4 (wideband CQI) are reported at different time slots to the eNodeB.”). This also clearly shows the prior art having multiple CSI configurations for A serving cell.
Furthermore, in response to 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).
All other arguments from the Applicant with respect to the rejected claim(s) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claim 21 – 40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21 – 40 of copending Application No. 16/554,162 (reference application hereinafter, “ the ‘162 application”) in view of Lee et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,554,281, hereinafter “Lee”. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the ‘180 application claims the similar limitations with added features, i.e., the instant application is a broader version of the ‘162 application. The ‘162 application does not claim a first and second interference measurement information. Lee teaches multiple interference measurements, (e.g., ¶¶ 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 the ‘162 application because “utilizing such an arrangement may also provide substantial flexibility for reporting different types of CSI”, (e.g., Lee, 29:39 – 40 et seq.).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 21 – 40 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 Lee et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,554,281, hereinafter “Lee”, in further view of Liao et al. U.S. Patent No. 8,817,647, hereinafter “Liao”.
Claim 21:
A method for transmitting channel state information (CSI), the method comprising:
identifying, by a user equipment (UE), a plurality of CSI configurations for a serving cell, wherein a CSI configuration among the plurality of CSI configurations includes channel measurement resource information, interference measurement resource information, CSI reference signal (RS) resource information for interference, an index for the CSI configuration, and information for a period and an offset, and wherein the channel measurement resource information includes CSI-RS resource information; and
Ko discloses 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.). Furthermore, Ko specifically incorporates by reference the standards from 3GPP, (e.g., 3GPP TS36.211, 3GPP TS36.213), see Ko ¶¶ 0153 and 0156). The Examiner has supplied 3GPP TS36.213 which specifically states that the UE identifies a plurality of CSI configuration information for a specific cell, e.g., Id. pp. 51 – 53.
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, (e.g., ¶¶ 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.).
reporting, by the UE, CSI corresponding to a CSI configuration on a physical uplink channel,
Ko teaches multiple instances of reporting/ feedback using PUCCH, (e.g., Fig. 27 – 34 and supporting areas of those figures, & ¶¶ 0172 et seq.)
wherein the CSI corresponding to the CSI configuration is acquired based on the channel measurement resource information, the interference measurement resource information, the CSI-RS resource information for interference, and the information for the period and the offset, and
Ko discloses 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.). 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, (e.g., ¶¶ 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.).
wherein the CSI configuration for reporting is selected among the plurality CSI configurations, in response to CSI reports for the plurality of CSI configurations colliding in time domain.
Ko discloses which configuration information it use in a hierarchical determination when a collision between CSI reports are determined, (e.g., ¶¶ 0011 – 0016, 0391 – 0393, 0440 – 0449, 0555, 0565 et seq., & 0580 et seq.). Furthermore, Ko teaches this limitation of not reporting based on type and index when a collision occurs, (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.” & 0541 – 0557 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.).
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.
Claim 26 teaches similar limitations as claim 21 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claims 31 and 36 teach similar limitations as claim 1 with the added limitations of a transceiver and controller. 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 22:
A method of claim 21, wherein the CSI configuration among the plurality of CSI configurations for the serving cell includes information for the CSI report type.
Ko discloses 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.).
Claims 27, 32, and 37 teach similar limitations as claim 22 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 23:
A method of claim 21, wherein the interference measurement resource information is associated with interference measurement resources configured only for interference measurement, and the CSI-RS resource information for interference is associated with CSI-RS resources for signal measurement.
Ko teaches a type of interference measurement resource information, see above cited areas.
However, as closely interpreted by the Examiner and in light of the rejections above, it is not clearly found that Ko teaches the claim limitation above. Lee teaches the claim limitation, “the interference measurement resource information is associated with interference measurement resources configured only for interference measurement” ”, (e.g., ¶¶ 30:62 – 31:31 et seq., “Alternatively, or additionally, in one or more embodiments, the UE may include in its interference estimate the contribution of a certain IMR only if IM REs from this IMR are present in the subframe used as CSI reference resource. In other words, the contribution of a certain IMR may be included only if the subframe used as CSI reference resource is an IM subframe for this IMR. The CSI reference resource may correspond to the subframe in which the aperiodic CSI is triggered, for example.”), and
“the CSI-RS resource information for interference is associated with CSI-RS resources for signal measurement”, (e.g., ¶¶ 16:27 – 39, 20:46 – 60 & 28:32 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.).
Claims 28, 33, and 38 teach similar limitations as claim 23 and is therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 24:
A method of claim 21, wherein second CSI corresponding to a second CSI configuration among the plurality CSI configurations is not reported, in response to the collision between CSI reports corresponding to the plurality CSI configurations.
Ko teaches this limitation of not reporting based on type and index when a collision occurs, (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.” & 0541 – 0557 et seq.). Ko also discloses which configuration information it use in a hierarchical determination when a collision between CSI reports are determined, (e.g., ¶¶ 0011 – 0016, 0391 – 0393, 0440 – 0449, 0555, 0565 et seq., & 0580 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.).
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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Liao with Ko because utilizing a plurality of configurations would allow the system to adapt to specific situations in cases of applying FDD or TDD. Furthermore, adding additional configurations would yield the predictable result of more configurations to select from and therefore mere duplications of parts, see MPEP 2144.04 VI.B. “Duplication of Parts”.
Claims 29, 34, and 39 teach similar limitations as claim 24 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 25:
A method of claim 21, wherein CSI corresponding to a CSI configuration with a lowest index has a priority among the plurality CSI configurations.
Ko 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.).
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.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Liao with Ko because utilizing a plurality of configurations would allow the system to adapt to specific situations in cases of applying FDD or TDD. Furthermore, adding additional configurations would yield the predictable result of more configurations to select from and therefore mere duplications of parts, see MPEP 2144.04 VI.B. “Duplication of Parts”.
Claims 30, 35, and 40 teach similar limitations as claim 24 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 /MICHAEL FUELLING/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992