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 Amendment
Applicants’ arguments filed on 4 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are moot in view of the new ground of rejection.
By the amendment filed 4 November 2025, claims 1, 3, 17, 26, 28, and 29 have been amended.
Claims 1-30 are pending.
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 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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, 2, 5, 7, 17, 20, and 26, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al (US Pub. 2019/0109626) in view of Sayana et al (US Pub. 2014/0010126), and further in view of Rahman (US 2019/0253181).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses an apparatus for wireless communication, comprising:
a processor (fig. 9, UE);
memory coupled with the processor (fig. 9, UE); and
instructions stored in the memory and operable, when executed by the processor (fig. 9, UE), to cause the apparatus to:
receive a channel state information (CSI) report configuration indicating a plurality of codebooks and a plurality of sub-bands associated with the plurality of codebooks … (para. 16, “...the second part is constituted by a plurality of subbands and is omitted based on a priority of each of the plurality of subbands.”para. 19, “...DCI includes... pattern information, omission rate information, or specific subband information...”Multiple codebooks are implied via different parts of CSI as described in para. 12), and wherein the CSI report configuration associated with a CSI report size limit (para. 12, “...the CSI is omitted some or all of the second part based on the specific condition.”; para. 16, Discusses omission based on subband priority, which correlates to maintaining a report within a size threshold.; fig. 9, BS sending CSI related setting information S9010; para. 24, 229, payload size of CSI can be optimized according to configuration scheme of the CSI; para. 161; para. 195, feedback content for CSI reporting will be described; para. 196, configuration for downlink codebook; para. 202, wideband, subband, partial band PMI; para. 240, codebook payload may be represented as in Table 7; para. 242, W1 represents wideband PMI, W2 represents sub-band PMI); and
transmit, based on the CSI report configuration, a CSI report within the CSI report size limit (para. 23, “The processor... reports the CSI of the measured channel to the base station, and wherein the CSI is some or all of the second part omitted based on the specific condition.”), the CSI report including CSI for at least a portion of the plurality of sub-bands associated with the plurality of codebooks (para. 16, 23, The transmitted CSI includes some of the subbands (the non-omitted ones), based on configuration.; fig. 9, Report CSI S9030; fig. 11, PMI/CQI, total payload; para. 202, 523, use of codebooks for generating PMI and other parameters as part of CSI reporting; para. 19, 497, CSI reports are structured using subband PMIs, and that information in CSI Part 2 is segmented per subband; para. 497).
Park does not specifically disclose wherein a first codebook of the plurality of codebooks is indicated as associated with a first set of the plurality of sub-bands, wherein a second codebook of the plurality of codebooks is indicated as associated with a second set of the plurality of sub-bands that is different than the first set of the plurality of sub-bands.
However Sayana from an analogous art discloses these limitations (para. 164, 167, 170, 171, A UE reports one subband CQI value per codeword for each set S subband and for each CSI configuration which is calculated … assuming transmission in the corresponding subband.; For subband aggregate CQI, in one example, a UE reports a subband aggregate CQI value per codeword for each set S subband).Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Sayana in the system of Park for optimal CSI reporting.
Park-Sayana does not specifically disclose wherein the CSI report size limit is indicated in the CSI report configuration as a maximum quantity of bits configured for a portion of the CSI or for the CSI report.
However, Rahman discloses that CSI reporting is determined considering “the maximum budget (or maximum number) for the CSI bits that can be carried (reported) via the configured PUCCH format” (Rahman ¶0154). Rahman further discloses that the number of CSI bits to be transmitted is determined based on the configured reporting format and the maximum CSI bit budget associated with that configured format (Rahman ¶0154), thereby teaching a maximum number of CSI bits associated with a configured CSI reporting format.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teaching of Rahman into the system of Park-Sayana to indicate a maximum quantity of bits in the CSI report configuration, because Park teaches controlling CSI size relative to uplink resource constraints, and Rahman teaches that a configured reporting format defines a maximum number of CSI bits that can be carried, such that incorporating a maximum quantity of bits into the CSI report configuration would have been a predictable implementation to ensure CSI reporting complies with configured reporting format and resource limitations.
Regarding claims 2 and 27, Park further discloses wherein the CSI includes at least one of a channel quality indicator (CQI) or a precoding matrix indicator (PMI). (fig. 11; Table 5)
Regarding claim 5, Park further discloses wherein the CSI report size limit relates to a size of an uplink resource for transmitting the CSI report. (para. 398)
Regarding claims 7 and 20, Sayana further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to: receive a configuration indicating an ordering of sub-band sizes and associated codebooks; and transmit the CSI report based on an increase in a sub-band size for at least one of the plurality of sub-bands associated with at least one of the plurality of codebooks according to the indicated ordering (para. 171, for each CSI configuration, the UE reports the selected precoding matrix indicator for each set S subband except for transmission mode 9 with 8 CSI-RS ports configured in which case a first precoding matrix indicator i.sub.1 is reported for the set S subbands and a second precoding matrix indicator i.sub.2 is reported for each set S subband.) Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Sayana in the system of Park for optimal CSI reporting.
Claim 17 recites an apparatus for wireless communication, complementary to the apparatus of claim 1, and is thus similarly rejected.
Claim 26 recites a method of wireless communication at a user equipment (UE), corresponding with the apparatus of claim 1, and is thus similarly rejected.
Claim 29 recites a method of wireless communication at a network node, corresponding to the apparatus of claim 17, and is thus similarly rejected.
Claims 8, 9, 14-16, 21, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al iin view of Sayana, and further in view of Faxer et al (US Pub. 20220052734)
Regarding claims 8 and 21, Park-Sayana does not specifically disclose wherein the CSI report configuration indicates, for each codebook in the plurality of codebooks, at least a portion of the plurality of sub-bands including multiple sub-bands of different sub-band sizes. However Faxer from an analogous art discloses this limitation (para. 34, the sub-band amplitude parameter p.sub.i,i.sup.(2) is quantized using 0-1 bit and the sub-band phase parameter ?.sub.l,i is quantized using 2-3 bits, depending on codebook configuration.) Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Faxer in the system of Park-Sayana for optimal CSI reporting.
Regarding claims 9 and 22, Park-Sayana further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to: transmit the CSI report including, for each codebook in the plurality of codebooks, CSI for a first one of the multiple sub-bands instead of a second one of the multiple sub-bands based on the first one of the multiple sub-bands having an increased size over the second one of the multiple sub-bands (para. 34, the sub-band amplitude parameter p.sub.i,i.sup.(2) is quantized using 0-1 bit and the sub-band phase parameter ?.sub.l,i is quantized using 2-3 bits, depending on codebook configuration.) Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Faxer in the system of Park-Sayana for optimal CSI reporting.
Regarding claim 14, Park-Sayana does not specifically disclose wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to: select, based on comparing an expected time duration of performing CSI measurements to a configured time duration for the CSI measurements, at least the portion of the plurality of sub-bands associated with the plurality of codebooks for which to measure CSI, and not including all of the plurality of sub-bands. However Faxer from an analogous art discloses this limitation (para. 34, the sub-band amplitude parameter p.sub.i,i.sup.(2) is quantized using 0-1 bit and the sub-band phase parameter ?.sub.l,i is quantized using 2-3 bits, depending on codebook configuration.) Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Faxer in the system of Park-Sayana for optimal CSI reporting.
Regarding claim 15, Faxer further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to: select, based on a configured ordering, at least the portion of the plurality of sub-bands associated with the plurality of codebooks for which to measure CSI (para. 34, the sub-band amplitude parameter p.sub.i,i.sup.(2) is quantized using 0-1 bit and the sub-band phase parameter ?.sub.l,i is quantized using 2-3 bits, depending on codebook configuration.) Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Faxer in the system of Park-Sayana for optimal CSI reporting.
Regarding claim 16, Faxer further discloses wherein the instructions, when executed by the processor, further cause the apparatus to at least one of: select, based on a configured ordering, at least the portion of the plurality of sub-bands associated with the plurality of codebooks for which to measure CSI; or select, according to a different ordering, at least the portion of the plurality of sub-bands associated with the plurality of codebooks for which to measure CSI, wherein the different ordering is at least one of a reverse ordering of the configured ordering, or another ordering that is determined based on the configured ordering. (para. 34, the sub-band amplitude parameter p.sub.i,i.sup.(2) is quantized using 0-1 bit and the sub-band phase parameter ?.sub.l,i is quantized using 2-3 bits, depending on codebook configuration.) Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate teaching of Faxer in the system of Park-Sayana for optimal CSI reporting.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3, 4, 6, 10-13 18, 19, 23-25, 28, and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 LUAT T PHUNG whose telephone number is (571)270-3126. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9 AM - 6 PM.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached on (571) 272-3988. 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.
/Luat Phung/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2468