DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
1. Applicant’s arguments filed on 09/30/2025 regarding claims 20, 41, 42, 62-64, 66-69, 73-78, 82-85, 88-92 are fully considered but moot in view of new ground(s) of rejection(s).
Claims 93-102 are added
Response to Amendments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
3. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
4. Claim(s) 20, 69, 73, 85, 88, 90 and 92 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang (US Patent No. 10,104, 693) in view of Roh (US PG Pub. No. 2009/0046647) and further in view of Park (US PG Pub. No. 2018/0254814) and Damnjanovic (US PG Pub. No. 2012/0014330).
As per claim 20:
Zhang teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a user equipment (UE) (see abstract), comprising:
determining a modified subband size of the UE…, wherein the modified subband size is larger than the configured subband size of the UE (see, the wireless device may choose to update the sub-band configuration, please see Col 6, lines 55-57. The wireless device, based on the result of the condition, decides to either divide a single sub-band into two or more separate sub-bands if the CCA bandwidth adjustment for dividing sub-bands is detected, please see Figure 3, step 340. Conversely, the wireless device, based on the result of the condition, decides to consolidate two or more separate sub-bands into a single sub-band if a CCA bandwidth adjustment condition for consolidating sub-band is detected, please see Figure 3, step 350).
Zhang does not clearly teach and transmitting, in a channel state information (CSI) report, an indication regarding the modified subband size to a network entity.
Roh teaches and transmitting, in a channel state information (CSI) report, an indication regarding the modified subband size to a network entity (see paragraph [0081], explicitly states: “Alternatively, the width adjustment of the CQI subband may be determined by a UE and then reported to a base station”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the adjustment of CQI subband (as disclosed in Roh) into Zhang as a way of achieving an optimal channel transmission (please see paragraphs [0055] and [0057] of Roh).
The combination of Zhang and Roh do not teach modified subband size of the UE based at least in part on a determination that a frequency selectivity of a wireless channel is less granular than a configured subband size of the UE.
Park teaches modified subband size of the UE based at least in part on a determination that a frequency selectivity of a wireless channel is less granular than a configured subband size of the UE (see paragraph [0317], disclose the UE may feedback with second PMI and a CQI with granularity different from that of the first PMI. That is, the second PMI and CQI may be reported with a subband size N times greater that a conventional subband size and a value of N may be informed by the base station to the UE through upper layer signaling (such as RRC signaling or the like)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implementing the reporting of second PMI with a subband size different (i.e., larger) than that of the first PMI (as disclosed in Park) into both Zhang and Roh as a way of enhancing CQI performance of the MUST scheme (please see paragraph [0340] of Park).
The combination of Zhang, Roh and Park do not clearly teach and wherein the modified subband size is a supportable subband size independent of a bandwidth part size of the UE.
Damnjanovic teaches and wherein the modified subband size is a supportable subband size independent of a bandwidth part size of the UE (see paragraph [0102], advanced UEs may have (i) first subband size (construed as said bandwidth part size of the UE) and a first number of bandwidth parts determined based on the DL base bandwidth and (ii) second bandwidth size (construed as said modified subband size) and a second number of bandwidth parts determined based on the segment bandwidth of all segments. Paragraph [0121] disclose the second bandwidth size may be determined based on a segment bandwidth of the at least one segment. As shown in figures 4A-4C, the segment bandwidth is different from the base carrier and thus the second bandwidth size is independent of the first bandwidth size of the UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the two different subband sizes (as disclosed in Damnjanovic into Zhang, Roh and Park as a way of enabling the UE to cycle through different bandwidth parts (please see paragraph [0102] of Damnjanovic).
As per claim 69:
Zhang teaches a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication (see Figure 600), comprising:
one or more memories (see Figure 6, memory 606);
and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories (see Figure 6, memory 606 coupled to processor 604), configured to cause the UE to:
determine a modified subband size of the UE…, wherein the modified subband size is larger than the configured subband size of the UE (see Col 6, lines 41-60, step 310 begins with the wireless device using a initial sub-band configuration during a first period. Step 330, the wireless device detects a CCA bandwidth adjustment condition which may indicate a pattern of interference on the shared channel has changed, please see Col 6, lines 52-55. The wireless device may choose to update the sub-band configuration, please see Col 6, lines 55-57. The wireless device, based on the result of the condition, decides to either divide a single sub-band into two or more separate sub-bands if the CCA bandwidth adjustment for dividing sub-bands is detected, please see Figure 3, step 340. Conversely, the wireless device, based on the result of the condition, decides consolidate two or more separate sub-bands into a single sub-band if a CCA bandwidth adjustment condition for consolidating sub-band is detected, please see Figure 3, step 350).
Zhang does not clearly teach and transmit, in a channel state information (CSJ) report, an indication regarding the modified subband size to a network entity.
Roh teaches and transmit, in a channel state information (CSJ) report, an indication regarding the modified subband size to a network entity (see paragraph [0081], explicitly states: “Alternatively, the width adjustment of the CQI subband may be determined by a UE and then reported to a base station”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the adjustment of CQI subband (as disclosed in Roh) into Zhang as a way of achieving an optimal channel transmission (please see paragraphs [0055] and [0057] of Roh).
The combination of Zhang and Roh do not teach modified subband size of the UE based at least in part on a determination that a frequency selectivity of a wireless channel is less granular than a configured subband size of the UE.
Part teaches modified subband size of the UE based at least in part on a determination that a frequency selectivity of a wireless channel is less granular than a configured subband size of the UE (see paragraph [0317], disclose the UE may feedback with second PMI and a CQI with granularity different from that of the first PMI. That is, the second PMI and CQI may be reported with a subband size N times greater that a conventional subband size and a value of N may be informed by the base station to the UE through upper layer signaling (such as RRC signaling or the like)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implementing the reporting of second PMI with a subband size different (i.e., larger) than that of the first PMI (as disclosed in Park) into both Zhang and Roh as a way of enhancing CQI performance of the MUST scheme (please see paragraph [0340] of Park).
The combination of Zhang, Roh and Park do not clearly teach and wherein the modified subband size is a supportable subband size independent of a bandwidth part size of the UE.
Damnjanovic teaches and wherein the modified subband size is a supportable subband size independent of a bandwidth part size of the UE (see paragraph [0102], advanced UEs may have (i) first subband size (construed as said bandwidth part size of the UE) and a first number of bandwidth parts determined based on the DL base bandwidth and (ii) second bandwidth size (construed as said modified subband size) and a second number of bandwidth parts determined based on the segment bandwidth of all segments. Paragraph [0121] disclose the second bandwidth size may be determined based on a segment bandwidth of the at least one segment. As shown in figures 4A-4C, the segment bandwidth is different from the base carrier and thus the second bandwidth size is independent of the first bandwidth size of the UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the two different subband sizes (as disclosed in Damnjanovic into Zhang, Roh and Park as a way of enabling the UE to cycle through different bandwidth parts (please see paragraph [0102] of Damnjanovic).
As per claim 73:
Zhang in view of Roh and further in view of Park and Damnjanovic teaches the UE of claim 69.
Zhang, Roh and Damnjanovic do not teach wherein the modified subband size is greater than the configured subband size.
Park teaches wherein the modified subband size is greater than the configured subband size (see paragraph [0317], the subband size of the second PMI feedback is N times greater than the conventional subband size).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implementing the reporting of second PMI with a subband size different (i.e., larger) than that of the first PMI (as disclosed in Park) into Zhang, Roh and Damnjanovic as a way of enhancing CQI performance of the MUST scheme (please see paragraph [0340] of Park).
As per claim 85:
Zhang teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium storing a set of instructions for wireless communication (see Col 11, lines 35-60, memory for storing programming and executable by processor), the set of instructions comprising:
one or more instructions that, when executed by one or more processors of a user equipment (UE), cause the UE to:
determine a modified subband size of the UE …wherein the modified subband size is larger than the configured subband size of the UE (see Col 6, lines 41-60, step 310 begins with the wireless device using a initial sub-band configuration during a first period. Step 330, the wireless device detects a CCA bandwidth adjustment condition which may indicate a pattern of interference on the shared channel has changed, please see Col 6, lines 52-55. The wireless device may choose to update the sub-band configuration, please see Col 6, lines 55-57. The wireless device, based on the result of the condition, decides to either divide a single sub-band into two or more separate sub-bands if the CCA bandwidth adjustment for dividing sub-bands is detected, please see Figure 3, step 340. Conversely, the wireless device, based on the result of the condition, decides consolidate two or more separate sub-bands into a single sub-band if a CCA bandwidth adjustment condition for consolidating sub-band is detected, please see Figure 3, step 350).
Zhang does not clearly teach and transmit, in a channel state information (CSJ) report, an indication regarding the modified subband size to a network entity.
Roh teaches and transmit, in a channel state information (CSJ) report, an indication regarding the modified subband size to a network entity (see paragraph [0081], explicitly states: “Alternatively, the width adjustment of the CQI subband may be determined by a UE and then reported to a base station”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the adjustment of CQI subband (as disclosed in Roh) into Zhang as a way of achieving an optimal channel transmission (please see paragraphs [0055] and [0057] of Roh).
The combination of Zhang and Roh do not teach modified subband size of the UE based at least in part on a determination that a frequency selectivity of a wireless channel is less granular than a configured subband size of the UE.
Part teaches modified subband size of the UE based at least in part on a determination that a frequency selectivity of a wireless channel is less granular than a configured subband size of the UE (see paragraph [0317], disclose the UE may feedback with second PMI and a CQI with granularity different from that of the first PMI. That is, the second PMI and CQI may be reported with a subband size N times greater that a conventional subband size and a value of N may be informed by the base station to the UE through upper layer signaling (such as RRC signaling or the like)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implementing the reporting of second PMI with a subband size different (i.e., larger) than that of the first PMI (as disclosed in Park) into both Zhang and Roh as a way of enhancing CQI performance of the MUST scheme (please see paragraph [0340] of Park).
The combination of Zhang, Roh and Park do not clearly teach and wherein the modified subband size is a supportable subband size independent of a bandwidth part size of the UE.
Damnjanovic teaches and wherein the modified subband size is a supportable subband size independent of a bandwidth part size of the UE (see paragraph [0102], advanced UEs may have (i) first subband size (construed as said bandwidth part size of the UE) and a first number of bandwidth parts determined based on the DL base bandwidth and (ii) second bandwidth size (construed as said modified subband size) and a second number of bandwidth parts determined based on the segment bandwidth of all segments. Paragraph [0121] disclose the second bandwidth size may be determined based on a segment bandwidth of the at least one segment. As shown in figures 4A-4C, the segment bandwidth is different from the base carrier and thus the second bandwidth size is independent of the first bandwidth size of the UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the two different subband sizes (as disclosed in Damnjanovic into Zhang, Roh and Park as a way of enabling the UE to cycle through different bandwidth parts (please see paragraph [0102] of Damnjanovic).
As per claim 88:
Zhang in view of Roh and further in view of Park and Damnjanovic teaches the method of claim 20.
Zhang, Roh and Damnjanovic do not teach wherein the modified subband size corresponds to a wideband reporting configuration.
Park teaches wherein the modified subband size corresponds to a wideband reporting configuration (paragraph [0318], second PMI and second CQI may be restricted to only a wideband).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implementing the reporting of second PMI with a subband size different (i.e., larger) than that of the first PMI (as disclosed in Park) into Zhang, Roh and Damnjanovic as a way of enhancing CQI performance of the MUST scheme (please see paragraph [0340] of Park).
Claims 90 and 92 are rejected in the same scope as claim 88.
5. Claim(s) 41, 42, 77, 78, 89, 91 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh (US PG Pub. No. 2009/0046647) in view of Park and further in view of Lei (US PG Pub. No. 2023/0026357) and Damnjanovic.
As per claim 41:
Roh teaches a method of wireless communication performed by a network entity (see paragraph [0010], disclose a base station for performing downlink scheduling), comprising:
receiving, from a user equipment (UE) and in a channel state information (CSI) report, an indication regarding a modified subband size of the UE (see paragraph [0081], explicitly states: “Alternatively, the width adjustment of the CQI subband may be determined by a UE and then reported to a base station”).
Roh does not clearly teach wherein the modified subband size is determined based at least in part on a determination that a frequency selectivity of a wireless channel is less granular than a configured subband size of the UE, and wherein the modified subband size is larger than the configured subband size of the UE.
Park teaches wherein the modified subband size is determined based at least in part on a determination that a frequency selectivity of a wireless channel is less granular than a configured subband size of the UE, and wherein the modified subband size is larger than the configured subband size of the UE (see paragraph [0317], disclose the UE may feedback with second PMI and a CQI with granularity different from that of the first PMI. That is, the second PMI and CQI may be reported with a subband size N times greater that a conventional subband size and a value of N may be informed by the base station to the UE through upper layer signaling (such as RRC signaling or the like)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implementing the reporting of second PMI with a subband size different (i.e., larger) than that of the first PMI (as disclosed in Park) into Roh as a way of enhancing CQI performance of the MUST scheme (please see paragraph [0340] of Park).
The combination of Roh and Park do not clearly teach and communicating with the UE using the modified subband size.
Lei teaches and communicating with the UE using the modified subband size (see paragraphs [0047], [0048], the BS 102 may transmit data on the aggregated subbands (i.e., on the PDSCH)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the uplink or downlink transmission of data on aggregated subbands as a subband based operation (as disclosed in Lei) into both Roh and Park as a way of improving spectral efficiency as well as achieving a dynamic spectrum usage with finer granularity of LBT bandwidth (please see paragraph [0050] of Lei).
The combination of Roh, Park and Lei do not clearly teach and wherein the modified subband size is a supportable subband size independent of a bandwidth part size of the UE.
Damnjanovic teaches and wherein the modified subband size is a supportable subband size independent of a bandwidth part size of the UE (see paragraph [0102], advanced UEs may have (i) first subband size (construed as said bandwidth part size of the UE) and a first number of bandwidth parts determined based on the DL base bandwidth and (ii) second bandwidth size (construed as said modified subband size) and a second number of bandwidth parts determined based on the segment bandwidth of all segments. Paragraph [0121] disclose the second bandwidth size may be determined based on a segment bandwidth of the at least one segment. As shown in figures 4A-4C, the segment bandwidth is different from the base carrier and thus the second bandwidth size is independent of the first bandwidth size of the UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the two different subband sizes (as disclosed in Damnjanovic into Zhang, Roh and Park as a way of enabling the UE to cycle through different bandwidth parts (please see paragraph [0102] of Damnjanovic).
As per claim 42:
Roh in view of Park and further in view of Lei and Damnjanovic teaches the method of claim 41.
The combination of Roh, Lei and Damnjanovic do not clearly teach further comprising: configuring the configured subband size.
Park teaches further comprising: configuring the configured subband size (see paragraph [0317], disclose using a subband size N times the conventional subband size).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implementing the reporting of second PMI with a subband size different (i.e., larger) than that of the first PMI (as disclosed in Park) into Roh, Lei and Damnjanovic as a way of enhancing CQI performance of the MUST scheme (please see paragraph [0340] of Park).
As per claim 65:
Roh in view of Park and further in view of Lei and Damnjanovic teaches the method of claim 41.
The combination of Roh, Lei and Damnjanovic do not clearly teach wherein the modified subband size is greater than the configured subband size.
Park teaches wherein the modified subband size is greater than the configured subband size (please see Figure 3, step 350, the wireless device, based on the result of the condition, decides consolidate two or more separate sub-bands into a single sub-band if a CCA bandwidth adjustment condition for consolidating sub-band is detected).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implementing the reporting of second PMI with a subband size different (i.e., larger) than that of the first PMI (as disclosed in Park) into Roh, Lei and Damnjanovic as a way of enhancing CQI performance of the MUST scheme (please see paragraph [0340] of Park).
As per claim 77:
Roh teaches a network entity for wireless communication (see paragraph [0010], disclose a base station for performing downlink scheduling), comprising:
configured to cause the network entity to:
receive, from a user equipment (UE) and in a channel state information (CSI) report, an indication regarding a modified subband size of the UE (see paragraph [0081], explicitly states: “Alternatively, the width adjustment of the CQI subband may be determined by a UE and then reported to a base station”).
Roh does not clearly teach one or more memories;
and one or more processors, coupled to the one or more memories
wherein the modified subband size is determined based at least in part on a determination that a frequency selectivity of a wireless channel is less granular than a configured subband size of the UE, and wherein the modified subband size is larger than the configured subband size of the UE.
Park teaches one or more memories (see Figure 13, memory 1312);
and one or more processors (see Figure 13, processor 1311), coupled to the one or more memories (paragraph [0319] disclose memory 1312 connected to processor 1311)
wherein the modified subband size is determined based at least in part on a determination that a frequency selectivity of a wireless channel is less granular than a configured subband size of the UE, and wherein the modified subband size is larger than the configured subband size of the UE (see paragraph [0317], disclose the UE may feedback with second PMI and a CQI with granularity different from that of the first PMI. That is, the second PMI and CQI may be reported with a subband size N times greater that a conventional subband size and a value of N may be informed by the base station to the UE through upper layer signaling (such as RRC signaling or the like)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implementing the reporting of second PMI with a subband size different (i.e., larger) than that of the first PMI (as disclosed in Park) into Roh as a way of enhancing CQI performance of the MUST scheme (please see paragraph [0340] of Park).
The combination of Roh and Park do not clearly teach and communicate with the UE using the modified subband size.
Lei teaches and communicate with the UE using the modified subband size (see paragraphs [0047], [0048], the BS 102 may transmit data on the aggregated subbands (i.e., on the PDSCH)).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the uplink or downlink transmission of data on aggregated subbands as a subband based operation (as disclosed in Lei) into both Roh and Park as a way of improving spectral efficiency as well as achieving a dynamic spectrum usage with finer granularity of LBT bandwidth (please see paragraph [0050] of Lei).
The combination of Roh, Park and Lei do not clearly teach and wherein the modified subband size is a supportable subband size independent of a bandwidth part size of the UE.
Damnjanovic teaches and wherein the modified subband size is a supportable subband size independent of a bandwidth part size of the UE (see paragraph [0102], advanced UEs may have (i) first subband size (construed as said bandwidth part size of the UE) and a first number of bandwidth parts determined based on the DL base bandwidth and (ii) second bandwidth size (construed as said modified subband size) and a second number of bandwidth parts determined based on the segment bandwidth of all segments. Paragraph [0121] disclose the second bandwidth size may be determined based on a segment bandwidth of the at least one segment. As shown in figures 4A-4C, the segment bandwidth is different from the base carrier and thus the second bandwidth size is independent of the first bandwidth size of the UE).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the two different subband sizes (as disclosed in Damnjanovic into Zhang, Roh and Park as a way of enabling the UE to cycle through different bandwidth parts (please see paragraph [0102] of Damnjanovic).
Claim 78 is rejected in the same scope as claim 42.
As per claim 89:
Roh in view of Park and further in view of Lei and Damnjanovic teaches the method of claim 41.
Roh, Lei and Damnjanovic do not teach wherein the modified subband size corresponds to a wideband reporting configuration.
Park teaches wherein the modified subband size corresponds to a wideband reporting configuration (paragraph [0318], second PMI and second CQI may be restricted to only a wideband).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implementing the reporting of second PMI with a subband size different (i.e., larger) than that of the first PMI (as disclosed in Park) into Roh, Lei and Damnjanovic as a way of enhancing CQI performance of the MUST scheme (please see paragraph [0340] of Park).
Claim 91 is rejected in the same scope as claim 89
6. Claims 62 and 74 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Roh and further in view of Park, Damnjanovic and Zhang (US PG Pub. No. 2025/0039914), hereinafter referred to as Zhang’914.
As per claim 62:
Zhang in view of Roh and further in view of Park and Damnjanovic teaches the method of claim 20 with the exception of:
wherein the wherein the CSI report is a Type II codebook report.
Zhang’914 teaches wherein the wherein the CSI report is a Type II codebook report (see paragraph [0045], subband CSI reporting is a type II codebook report).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the CSI report configuration (as disclosed in Zhang’914) into Zhang, Roh, Park and Damnjanovic. The motivation for doing so would be to support within the range of the terminal capability and also improve system performance (please see paragraph [0006] of Zhang’914).
Claim 74 is rejected in the same scope as claim 62.
7. Claims 66 and 82 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Park and further in view of Lei, Damnjanovic and Zhang’914.
As per claim 66:
Roh in view of Park and further in view of Lei and Damnjanovic teaches the method of claim 41 with the exception of:
wherein the wherein the CSI report is a Type II codebook report.
Zhang’914 teaches wherein the wherein the CSI report is a Type II codebook report (see paragraph [0045], subband CSI reporting is a type II codebook report).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the CSI report configuration (as disclosed in Zhang’914). The motivation for doing so would be to support within the range of the terminal capability and also improve system performance (please see paragraph [0006] of Zhang’914).
Claim 82 is rejected in the same scope as claim 66.
8. Claims 63 and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Roh and further in view of Park, Damnjanovic and Chang (US PG Pub. No. 2019/0068266).
As per claim 63:
Zhang in view of Roh and further in view of Park, Damnjanovic teaches the method of claim 20 with the exception of:
wherein the indication regarding the modified subband size is carried in a first part of the CSI report.
Chang teaches wherein the indication regarding the modified subband size is carried in a first part of the CSI report (see paragraph [0158] disclose CSI reports are generated to indicate eigenvectors which are based on first subband size).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the reporting of CSI corresponding to a subband size (as disclosed in Chang) into Zhang, Roh, Park and Damnjanovic. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce the search complexity and feedback overhead (please see paragraph [0058] of Chang).
Claim 75 is rejected in the same scope as claim 63.
9. Claims 67 and 83 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Park and further in view of Lei, Damnjanovic and Chang.
As per claim 67:
Roh in view of Park and further in view of Lei and Damnjanovic teaches the method of claim 41 with the exception of:
wherein the indication regarding the modified subband size is carried in a first part of the CSI report.
Chang teaches wherein the indication regarding the modified subband size is carried in a first part of the CSI report (see paragraph [0158] disclose CSI reports are generated to indicate eigenvectors which are based on first subband size).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the reporting of CSI corresponding to a subband size (as disclosed in Chang) into Roh, Park, Lei and Damnjanovic. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce the search complexity and feedback overhead (please see paragraph [0058] of Chang).
Claim 83 is rejected in the same scope as claim 67.
10. Claims 64 and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang in view of Roh and further in view of Park, Damnjanovic and Hao (US PG Pub. No. 2022/0302979).
As per claim 64:
Zhang in view of Roh and further in view of Park and Damnjanovic teaches the method of claim 20 with the exception of:
wherein a second part of the CSI report includes at least one of: a precoding matrix indicator, a channel quality indicator, a rank indicator, a reference signal received power indicator, or a signal to interference and noise ratio indicator.
Hao teaches wherein a second part of the CSI report includes at least one of: a precoding matrix indicator (see paragraph [0056], the second part of the CSI report may include PMI), a channel quality indicator (Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art), a rank indicator (Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art), a reference signal received power indicator (Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art), or a signal to interference and noise ratio indicator (Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the CSI report setting (as disclosed in Hao) into Zhang, Roh, Park and Damnjanovic. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce overhead in CSI report (please see paragraph [0065] of Hao).
Claim 76 is rejected in the same scope as claim 64.
11. Claims 68 and 84 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being upatentable over Roh in view of Park and further in view of Lei, Damnjanovic and Hao.
As per claim 68:
Roh in view of Park and further in view of Lei and Damnjanovic teaches the method of claim 41 with the exception of:
wherein a second part of the CSI report includes at least one of: a precoding matrix indicator, a channel quality indicator, a rank indicator, a reference signal received power indicator, or a signal to interference and noise ratio indicator.
Hao teaches wherein a second part of the CSI report includes at least one of: a precoding matrix indicator (see paragraph [0056], the second part of the CSI report may include PMI), a channel quality indicator (Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art), a rank indicator (Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art), a reference signal received power indicator (Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art), or a signal to interference and noise ratio indicator (Note: Limitation(s) is/are recited in alternate form and thus not addressed by the prior art).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the CSI report setting (as disclosed in Hao) into Roh, Park, Lei and Damnjanovic. The motivation for doing so would be to reduce overhead in CSI report (please see paragraph [0065] of Hao).
Claim 84 is rejected in the same scope as claim 68.
12. Claims 93, 94, 97, 98, 101 and 102 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhang, Roh, Park and further in view of Damnjanovic and Xiong (US PG Pub. No. 2019/0173622).
As per claim 93:
Zhang in view of Roh and further in view of Park and Damnjanovic teaches the method of claim 20 with the exception of:
wherein parameters corresponding to the CSI report are encoded in uplink control information (UCI) and physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH).
Xiong teaches wherein parameters corresponding to the CSI report are encoded in uplink control information (UCI) and physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) (see paragraph [0124], the CSI report can be encoded in UCI and mapped to either PUCCH or PUSCH).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the encoding and resource mapping of the different UCI (as disclosed in Xiong) into Zhang, Roh, Park and Damnjanovic as a way of resolving the ambiguity issue when the UE fails to detect one of DCIs used to trigger the CSI, BSI and/or BRI report(s) (please see paragraph 124] of Xiong).
As per claim 94:
Zhang in view of Roh and further in view of Park and Damnjanovic teaches the method of claim 20 with the exception of:
wherein parameters corresponding to the CSI report are encoded in uplink control information (UCI) and physical uplink control channel (PUCCH).
Xiong teaches wherein parameters corresponding to the CSI report are encoded in uplink control information (UCI) and physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) (see paragraph [0124], the CSI report can be encoded in UCI and mapped to either PUCCH or PUSCH).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the encoding and resource mapping of the different UCI (as disclosed in Xiong) into Zhang, Roh, Park and Damnjanovic as a way of resolving the ambiguity issue when the UE fails to detect one of DCIs used to trigger the CSI, BSI and/or BRI report(s) (please see paragraph 124] of Xiong).
Claim 97 is rejected in the same scope as claim 93
Claim 98 is rejected in the same scope as claim 94.
Claim 101 is rejected in the same scope as claim 93.
Claim 102 is rejected in the same scope as claim 94.
13. Claims 95, 96, 99 and 100 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roh in view of Park and further in view of Lei, Damnjanovic and Xiong.
As per claim 95:
Roh, Park, Lei and Damnjanovic teaches the method of claim 41 with the exception of:
wherein the parameters corresponding to the CSI report are encoded in uplink channel information (UCI) and mapped to a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH).
Xiong teaches wherein the parameters corresponding to the CSI report are encoded in uplink channel information (UCI) and mapped to a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (see paragraph [0124], the CSI report can be encoded in UCI and mapped to either PUCCH or PUSCH).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the encoding and resource mapping of the different UCI (as disclosed in Xiong) into Roh, Park, Lei and Damnjanovic as a way of resolving the ambiguity issue when the UE fails to detect one of DCIs used to trigger the CSI, BSI and/or BRI report(s) (please see paragraph 124] of Xiong).
As per claim 96:
Roh, Park, Lei and Damnjanovic teaches the method of claim 41 with the exception of:
wherein the parameters corresponding to the CSI report are encoded in uplink channel information (UCI) and mapped to a physical uplink control channel (PUSCH).
Xiong teaches wherein the parameters corresponding to the CSI report are encoded in uplink channel information (UCI) and mapped to a physical uplink control channel (PUSCH) (see paragraph [0124], the CSI report can be encoded in UCI and mapped to either PUCCH or PUSCH).
Thus, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to implement the encoding and resource mapping of the different UCI (as disclosed in Xiong) into Roh, Park, Lei and Damnjanovic as a way of resolving the ambiguity issue when the UE fails to detect one of DCIs used to trigger the CSI, BSI and/or BRI report(s) (please see paragraph 124] of Xiong).
Claim 101 is rejected in the same scope as claim 95.
Claim 102 is rejected in the same scope as claim 96.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PRINCE AKWASI MENSAH whose telephone number is (571)270-7183. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00am-4:00pm.
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 THIER can be reached at 571-272-2832. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
PRINCE AKWASI. MENSAH
Examiner
Art Unit 2474
/PRINCE A MENSAH/Examiner, Art Unit 2474
/Michael Thier/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights