DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendment filed on: 07/08/2026.
Claims 1, 6, 9, 11, 16, 19, 23-24, and 30-36 are pending for Examination.
Claims 1, 11, 30 and 33 have been amended.
Claims 2-5, 7-8, 10, 12-15, 17-18, 20-22, and 25-29 have been cancelled to date.
NEW claim 36 has been added.
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
Applicant' s arguments filed 07/08/2026, with respect to claim 1, 11, 23, and 24, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection, i.e., the present §103 rejection based on Sun in view of Ingale, does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In this regard, the Examiner refers Applicant to the new rejection of its claims provided herewith.
The Examiner also notes that during prosecution for the instant application, Applicant has already amended its claims from affirmatively reciting a 2-step RA procedure (having Msg.A and Msg. B), to instead, affirmatively reciting a 4-step RA procedure (having Msg.1, Msg.2, Msg3, and Msg.4), which may be considered to be different embodiments. Accordingly, the Examiner notes that further claim amendments directed to different, alternative embodiments may warrant a Restriction Requirement, depending on the specific subject matter claimed.
With respect to the dependent claims, Applicant argues these claims as being allowable based on their respective dependence from one of the above-indicated independent claims. Applicant’s Remarks at pp. 11-12. As such, Applicant’s corresponding arguments with respect to the dependent claims are likewise determined not to be persuasive or have otherwise rendered moot, for the same reasons described above for the respective independent claims.
Claim Interpretation – Alternative Claim Language
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, the BRI of an alternative claim limitation or term can be determined to be the least-limiting interpretation, consistent with the specification. In this context, the term “or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to alternatively be: one or the other (i.e., A or B), but not both (i.e., not A and B). The term “and/or” by plain meaning can be interpreted to be: “and” or alternatively “or,” but not both, as this would not make sense. In this context, the forward-slash “/” is equivalent to the alternative “or.” Likewise, the alternative terms “at least one of,” “one or more of,” and the like, followed by multiple alternative claim limitations can be reasonably interpreted to be only “one of” a group of alternative claim limitations.
Prior art disclosing any one of multiple alternative claim limitations discloses matter within the scope of the claimed invention. "When a claim covers several structures or compositions, either generically or as alternatives, the claim is deemed anticipated if any of the structures or compositions within the scope of the claim is known in the prior art." Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1351, 60 USPQ2d 1375, 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (claim to a system for setting a computer clock to an offset time to address the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem, applicable to records with year date data in "at least one of two-digit, three-digit, or four-digit" representations, was held anticipated by a system that offsets year dates in only two-digit formats). See MPEP 2131.
Claim Interpretation – Contingent Claim Terms
The claims of the instant application are given their Broadest Reasonable Interpretation (BRI) using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. In this regard, contingent method claim type limitations, such as: “in case that,” “in a case that,” “in a case where,” “if…, then,” “if,” etc., require only those steps that must be performed and do not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met, under BRI.
Therefore, these contingent method claim limitations, i.e., those that need not be carried out or otherwise performed, do not require Examination on-the-merits of any corresponding conditional claim limitations. See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) and MPEP 2111.04, II. Contingent Limitations.
With respect to claims 30, 32-33, and 35, each of these method type claims includes one or more contingent claim terms, such as “in a case where…,” which do not require Examination on-the-merits based at least upon the fact that these method claims need not be performed or are otherwise not required to be performed. As such, it is recommended that Applicant amend these claim terms accordingly to a non-contingent term, such as “when…,” or something similar in order to require performance of the corresponding claim subject matter.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 6, 11, 16, 23-24, and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PG Pub. 2023/0028843 A1, Sun et al. (hereinafter “Sun”) in view of US PG Pub. 2020/0053607 A1, Ingale et al. (hereinafter “Ingale”).
With Respect to Claim 1, Sun teaches:
An information reporting method, applied to a terminal (UE 103-104 of Fig. 1 and 300 of Fig. 3), comprising:
receiving indication information under a random access mechanism (paras. [0011] and [0016]-[0018]; and Figs. 4 and 6—a UE can receive, from a BS, a RAR message with indication information associated with CSI scheduling/measuring/reporting); and
reporting channel state information according to the indication information,
wherein the indication information is a random access response (RAR) message used for indicating that the terminal reports the channel state information through a third message of a first random access mechanism (paras. [0036], [0058]-[0059], [0127]-[0128], [0142], [0154], and [0208]; and Figs. 4 and 6 —a UE can receive a RAR message, i.e., a Msg.2 of a 4-step RA procedure, with reporting indication information that can be used to indicate and trigger the UE’s reporting of CSI —in response to receiving the RAR reporting indication information, the UE can be triggered to then report the CSI via the Msg.3 of the 4-step RA procedure);
wherein the RAR message comprises first indication information used for indicating at least one parameter to be comprised in the channel state information reported by the terminal, the at least one parameter comprising at least one of a cell index, a subcarrier index, an index of an optimal reference signal, reference signal receive power (RSRP), a channel quality indicator (CQI), a rank indicator (RI), or a precoding matrix indicator (PMI) (paras. [0111]-[0114], [0241]-[0242], [0244], [0248], and [0258] —a RAR message can comprise information indicated by the BS that can be used for determining reference resources, i.e., frequency domain resources (a narrowband, a PRB, or a carrier index for the PDCCH, indicated in the RAR), used for measuring the CSI, where CSI can include CQI, RSRP, PMI, RI, etc. —the alternative terms “at least one of” and “or” only require examination on-the-merits of a single, claimed alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section),
However, Sun does not explicitly teach:
wherein the optimal reference signal is a reference signal with the largest measurement power or a reference signal with the largest CQI.
Ingale does teach:
an optimal reference signal is a reference signal with a largest measurement power or a reference signal with a largest CQI (paras. [0114]-[0115], [0070]-[0074], [0080]-[0081], and [0094] —a UE can respond to a BS RAR CSI request with indication of a RS, i.e., a cell-specific CSI-RS, with the largest/best RSRP, which can be identified to the BS as the best RS/beam by index —the best RS/beam can be identified/required to meet a threshold, i.e., a threshold RSRP value —the term “or” only requires Examination on-the-merits of a single corresponding claim alternative, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun’s CSI Msg.3 parameter reporting of RSRP, CQI, RI, PMI, to include identification of the best RS RS/beam, i.e., a cell-specific RS, associated with a highest/best RSRP, as taught by Ingale.
The motivation for doing so would have been to identify and report on a best cell RS/beam to improve future intra-device communications, as recognized by Ingale (paras. [0114]-[0115], [0070]-[0074], [0080]-[0081], and [0094]).
With respect to claim 6, Sun in view of Ingale teaches:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the channel state information is obtained by measuring a reference signal, wherein the reference signal comprises at least one of an SSB or a CSI-RS (Sun: paras. [0033], [0117]-[0118], [0121], and [0248] —a UE can be configured to measure and report CSI information by measuring a network RS, which may correspond to a CSI-RS —the alternative terms “at least one of” and “or” only require examination on-the-merits of a single claim alternative, for the reasons described above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
With respect to claim 11, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 11 is directed to a method applied from the perspective of a service node (Sun: network base station 101-102/500 of Figs. 1 and 5). As such claim 11 is likewise rejected under §103, based on Sun in view of Ingale, for the same reasons explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 16, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 6. As such, claim 16 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sun in view of Ingale, for the same reasons already explained above for dependent claim 6.
With respect to claim 23, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 1, except claim 23 is directed to a terminal comprising at least one processor and a storage apparatus configured to store an executable program (Sun: terminal device UE 103-104/300 with processor 301 and memory 302 of Figs. 1 and 3). As such claim 23 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sun in view of Ingale, for the same reasons already explained above for independent claim 1.
With respect to claim 24, this claim recites similar features to independent claim 11, except claim 24 is directed to a service node comprising at least one processor and a storage apparatus configured to store an executable program (Sun: BS 101-102/500 with processor 501 and memory 502 of Figs. 1 and 5). As such claim 24 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sun in view of Ingale, for the same reasons already explained above for independent claim 11.
With respect to claim 36, Sun in view of Ingale teaches:
The method according to claim 1, where the first indication information is further used for indicating reference signals to be measured for channel state information (Sun: paras. [0111]-[0114], [0241]-[0242], [0244], [0248], and [0258]; and Figs. 4 and 6 —a RAR message can comprise information indicated that can be used by a UE for determining reference signal resources, i.e., associated with a narrowband, a PRB, and/or a carrier index for the PDCCH) to be measured for deriving CSI, i.e., for reporting in a Msg.3).
Claims 9 and 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Ingale, in further view of US PG Pub. 2022/0247459 A1, Faxer.
With respect to claim 9, Sun in view of Ingale teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Sun in view of Ingale does not explicitly teach:
in a case of more than one reference signal antenna port, the parameter of the channel state information comprises at least one of the cell index, the subcarrier index, the index of the optimal reference signal, the RSRP of the optimal reference signal, the CQI of the optimal reference signal, the RI of the optimal reference signal, or the PMI of the optimal reference signal.
Faxer does teach:
in a case of more than one reference signal antenna port, a parameter of channel state information comprises at least one of the cell index, the subcarrier index, the index of the optimal reference signal, the RSRP of the optimal reference signal, the CQI of the optimal reference signal, the RI of the optimal reference signal, or the PMI of the optimal reference signal (paras. [0013]-[0015], [0200], and [0214]-[0217]; and Tables 6.3.1.1.2-7, “2-10, and “2-11, and 6.3.2.1.2-4 and “2-5 —for UE CSI reporting with more than one antenna port, i.e., two antenna ports, a parameter of channel state information can comprise PMI information associated with an optimal RS corresponding to wide/sub-band codebook indexing, etc. —the alternative terms “or” and “at least one of” only require examination on-the-merits of a single claim alternative for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section.
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun in view of Ingale’s CSI reporting with the parameter-configured reporting, i.e., associated with PMI, for a device having more than one reference signal antenna port, as taught by Faxer.
The motivation for doing so would have been to consider multi-antenna port reference signal CSI reporting to improve reporting considering antenna diversity, as recognized by Faxer (paras. [0013]-[0015], [0200], and [0214]-[0217]; and Tables 6.3.1.1.2-7, “2-10, and “2-11, and 6.3.2.1.2-4 and “2-5).
With respect to claim 19, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 9. As such, claim 19 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sun in view of Ingale and Faxer, for the same reasons already explained above for dependent claim 9.
Claim 31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun in view of Ingale, in further view of US PG Pub. 2017/0353976 A1, Yerramalli et al. (hereinafter “Yerramalli”).
With respect to claim 31, Sun in view of Ingale teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Sun in view of Ingale does not explicitly teach:
wherein the indication information further comprises at least one of:
second indication information used for indicating a reference signal to be measured for the terminal to calculate the channel state information; and third indication information used for indicating a reporting operation performed by the terminal to the channel state information, wherein the reporting operation comprises to report and not to report.
Yerramalli does teach:
second indication information used for indicating a reference signal to be measured for a terminal to calculate channel state information; and third indication information used for indicating a reporting operation performed by the terminal to the channel state information, wherein the reporting operation comprises to report and not to report (paras. [0061]-[0065] —the CSI reporting configuration received from the base station can include indication information on which reference signals are to be measured to calculate CSI, i.e., DRS and CSI-RS information, and/or indication information identifying whether CSI reporting is enabled and the specific type(s) of CSI reporting that is enabled —the alternative term “at least one of” only requires examination on-the-merits of a single alternative claim limitation, for the reasons explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Alternative Claim Language section).
It would have been prima-facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sun in view of Ingale’s CSI reporting to include a specific reference signal, i.e., a CSI-RS, indication for CSI measurement reporting, as taught by Yerramalli.
The motivation for doing so would have been to simplify a RACH procedure by not always requiring UE selection of a reference signal for measurement reporting, as recognized by Yerramalli (paras. [0061]-[0065]).
With respect to claim 34, this claim recites similar features to dependent claim 31. As such, claim 34 is likewise rejected under §103 based on Sun in view of Ingale and Yerramalli, for the same reasons already explained above for dependent claim 31.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 30, 32-33, and 35 are objected to as respectively being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if, both:
rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and
rewritten to cure the contingent claim term issue, relating to use of the term “in a case where,” within a method claim type, as explained above in the Claim Interpretation — Contingent Claim Terms section.
With respect to claims 30 and 33, none of the identified prior art fairly teaches/suggests the combined amended claim subject matter of: “wherein in a case where the index of the optimal reference signal is consistent with an index of a reference signal corresponding to a resource that is occupied by a first-type random access mechanism, the parameter of the channel state information does not comprise the index of the optimal reference signal, and in a case where the index of the optimal reference signal is inconsistent with the index of the reference signal corresponding to the resource that is occupied by the first message of the first-type random access mechanism, the parameter of the channel state information comprises the index of the optimal reference signal, wherein the reference signal correspond the to the resource is used for transmitting the first message of the first-type random access mechanism,” as recited within context of claim 30 combined with independent claim 1 (from which claim 30 depends), and as recited in the context of claim 33 combined with claim 11 (from which claim 33 depends.
With respect to claims 32 and 35, none of the identified prior art fairly teaches/suggests the combined amended claim subject matter of: “wherein in a case where the indication information does not comprise the second indication information and is under the first-type random access mechanism, the reference signal to be measured for the terminal to calculate the channel state information is a reference signal corresponding to a resource occupied by a first message of the first-type random access mechanism; wherein the reference signal comprises at least one of a synchronization signal/physical broadcast channel block (SSB), or a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) as recited within context of claim 32 combined with claims 31 and 1 (from which claim 32 depends), and as recited in the context of claim 35 combined with claim 34 and 11 (from which claim 35 depends).
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 Scott Schlack whose telephone number is (571)272-2332. The Examiner can normally be reached Mon. through Fri., from 11am-6pm EST.
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, Moo Jeong can be reached at (571)272-9617. 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.
/Scott A. Schlack/Examiner, Art Unit 2418
/Moo Jeong/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2418
Prosecution Insights