DETAILED FINAL OFFICE ACTION
This action is responsive to a response by the Applicant’s filing 11/20/2024. 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 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 11/20/2024 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that Ko does not teach the suggested CSI configuration index because, “the “group name (A,B,C,D)” in the steps of grouping report types of Ko may correspond to a CSI configuration index of the present application, in the present application, one index corresponds to only one CSI report. Therefore, “group name” of Ko does not correspond to an index related features.”
As to this argument, in response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., one index corresponds to only one CSI report) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Furthermore, it is also seen that Liao teaches the indexing as claimed by the Applicant.
Applicant argues that Liao does not teach CSI configuration index, see pp. 6 – 7.
As to this argument, Liao clearly teaches the configuration index as similarly claimed by the applicant. As pointed out by the Examiner, Liao utilized multiple different types of index rules in order to determine priority.
It is further seen in Liao in column 4 et seq,., (i.e., 4:47 et seq, “Jn 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(1la) (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.
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).
Applicant argues that Lee does not teach channel measurement resource information or CSI configuration index related features.
As to this argument, 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).
Secondly, Applicant does not even point to the sections of the specification used in the rejection, i.e., Applicant realize on paragraph numbers as would be found in a patent Publication, Lee has a patent number of 10,554,281. When one looks at the cited area given by the Applicant, Column 4, lines 28 – 42:
“According to example embodiments, systems and/or methods for providing interface measurement may be provided and/or used. For example, a UE may be configured with an interference measurement method to use with an IM resource and/or a UE may be configured with multiple IM resources and methods to measure a single interference type. Precoder assumption for measurement from NZP CSI-RS resource corresponding to interfering signal may also be provided and/or used. Additionally, a generalized CSI reporting configuration based on list of CSI-RS resources (NZP or IM) each of which may correspond to a desired signal or an interfering signal may be provided and/or used. Furthermore, varying RE positions as a function of subframe and frequency to avoid systematic collisions may be provided and/or used.”
It is clearly seen that Lee discloses interference measurement resources and channel measurement resource information from the cited areas above and what was previously cited in the rejection below.
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 1 – 17 of copending Application No. 16/552,732 (reference application hereinafter, “the ‘732 application”). 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 ‘732 application claims the similar limitations with added features, i.e., the instant application is a broader version of the ‘732 application.
Claim 21 – 40 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 21, 23 – 26, 28 – 31, 33 – 36, and 38 – 40 of copending Application No. 16/554,162 (reference application hereinafter, “the ‘162 application”). 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 ‘162 application claims the similar limitations with added features, i.e., the instant application is a broader version of the ‘162 application.
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 – 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 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 21:
A method for transmitting channel state information (CSI) by a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system, the method comprising:
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
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).
Ko also teaches the use of “indexing”, (e.g., ¶¶ 0549 – 0559 et seq., Tables 72 & 73). It is clearly seen that Ko groups different report types in indexed groups as ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, and ‘D’.
PNG
media_image1.png
154
294
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
76
294
media_image2.png
Greyscale
These indexes is given weight similarly to the present application, i.e., Applicant’s index of 1-4.
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.).
identifying priority information of CSI reports corresponding to the plurality of CSI configuration information, based on the CSI configuration index, in response to the plurality of CSI reports colliding in the time domain,
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,
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).
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.
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).
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.).
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 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 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).
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 priority information is identified further based on a CSI report type.
Ko teaches such a scenario, (e.g., Abstract, ¶¶ 0011 – 0012, 0540 – 0579; Tables 70 – 74).
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 a CSI report type with the subband CQI has a lower priority than a CSI report type with the wideband CQI.
Ko teaches such a scenario, (e.g., Abstract, ¶¶ 0011 – 0012, 0540 – 0579; Tables 70 – 74).
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). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to combine Ko with Lee and 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
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.
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:
/MICHAEL FUELLING/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3992
Prosecution Insights