DETAILED FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is responsive to a response by the Applicant’s filing 03/27/2025. The instant application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/27/2025 has been entered.
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 11/06/2019. 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 03/27/2025 have been fully considered but they are because of a rejection with different reasons for combination.
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, 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, 22, 24 – 27, 29 - 32, 34 - 37, 39, and 40 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Liao et al., U.S. Patent No. 8,817,647, herein after “Liao” , in view of Lee et al. U.S. Patent No. 10,554,281, hereinafter “Lee” , in further view of Ko et al. U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0076028, hereinafter “Ko”.
Claim 21:
A method for transmitting channel state information (CSI) by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
Liao discloses a method for a UE to transmit CSI feedback in a multi-carrier system, (e.g., ¶0046, “The CSI report... consists of feedback for all downlink carriers. For each downlink carrier, the UE determines a priority level for periodic CSI reporting."). 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.).
identifying, a plurality of CSI configuration information, wherein each of the plurality of CSI configuration information includes channel measurement resource information, interference measurement resource information, and a CSI configuration index; and
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.”). Lee further teaches such a limitation, (e.g., 29:47 – 62 et seq.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Lee with Liao because “utilizing such an arrangement may also provide substantial flexibility for reporting different types of CSI”, (e.g., Lee, 29:39 – 62 et seq.).
identifying priority information between a first CSI report corresponding to first CSI configuration information and a second CSI report corresponding to second CSI configuration information, based on a CSI report type of the first CSI report, a CSI report type of the second CSI report, a first CSI configuration index included in the first CSI configuration information, and a second CSI configuration index included in the second CSI configuration information, in response to the first CSI report and the second CSI report colliding in time domain; and
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).
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. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Ko with Liao and Lee because “utilizing such an arrangement may also provide substantial flexibility for reporting different types of CSI”, (e.g., Lee, 29:39 – 40 et seq.).
It would have also been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to substitute or supplement the "serving cell index" taught by Ko with the "indices of configurations" taught by Lee. As noted in the Technical Evaluation, in environments like CoMP (Coordinated Multi-Point) where multiple CSI processes/configurations exist on a single carrier, using the configuration index as a tie-breaker ensures deterministic collision resolution when cell indices alone are insufficient. This is a "Simple Substitution" of one known index for another to achieve the "Predictable Result" of resolving ties between configurations (MPEP 2143).
transmitting, to a base station in the wireless communication system, CSI corresponding to a CSI configuration information among the plurality of CSI configuration information, based on the identified priority information,
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, (e.g., Liao, 5:31 – 35).
wherein the CSI corresponding to the CSI configuration information is acquired based on the channel measurement resource information and the interference measurement resource information included in the corresponding CSI configuration information.
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 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 Liao because “utilizing such an arrangement may also provide substantial flexibility for reporting different types of CSI”, (e.g., Lee, 29:39 – 62 et seq.).
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. Lee teaches these and other limitations similarly stated in claim 21, see above cited areas, and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 22:
A method of claim 21, wherein the CSI corresponding to the CSI configuration information 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).
As closely interpreted by the Examiner, Ko teaches such a scenario, (e.g., Abstract, ¶¶ 0011 – 0012, 0540 – 0579; Tables 70 – 74). It would have also been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art combine Ko with Liao for similar reasons stated above.
Claims 27, 32, and 37 teach similar limitations as claim 22 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Claim 24:
A method of claim 21, wherein a CSI report type with the subband CQI has a lower priority than a CSI report type with the wideband CQI.
Liao discloses such a scenario, (e.g., 7:34-38, "The UE determines a priority level for periodic CSI reporting for the downlink carrier based on feedback types and feedback modes to be transmitted for each downlink carrier at a given time slot.", 7:55-57, "For example, Table 1 below defines the priority levels for different feedback types.", 8:1-13, Table 1: This table explicitly defines the priority levels (e.g., Priority 0 for Types 3, 4, 2c; Priority 1 for Types 2, 2b, 2d, 1a; Priority 2 for Type 1).
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 in response to a collision between the plurality of CSI reports with a same priority for the CSI report type, the transmitted CSI corresponding to the CSI configuration information corresponds to a CSI configuration information with a lowest index among the plurality of CSI information.
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 - 0012, “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.” & 0540 – 0579; Tables 70 – 74).
Lee further discloses, (e.g., 29:57-62, "1) nonzero-power CSI-RS configuration #1 with IM-CSI-RS #3, #10, #13, #15, #17, #20; and/or 2) non-zero-power CSI-RS configuration #2 with IM-CSI-RS #3, #110, #13, #14, #16, #119". This explicitly teaches the structural indexing of CSI configurations.). It would have been obvious to a PHOSITA at the time of the invention to substitute the "serving cell index" tie-breaker taught by Ko with the "CSI configuration index" taught by Lee via the rationale of Simple Substitution (MPEP 2143). In advanced communication systems where multiple CSI processes or configurations exist on a single carrier (e.g., Coordinated Multi-Point operations as taught by Lee), cell indices are no longer sufficient to deterministically resolve ties between colliding reports. A PHOSITA would naturally apply Ko's deterministic "smallest index" logic directly to the configuration indices of Lee to ensure predictable collision resolution within a single carrier. It would have also been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Ko and Lee with Liao because of similar reasons stated above.
Claims 30, 35, and 40 teach similar limitations as claim 25 and are therefore rejected for similar reasons as stated above.
Conclusion
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:
/MATTHEW E HENEGHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3992 /M.F/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights