DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
2. Applicant's arguments filed 8/21/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (page 8) “there is no teaching of a resource set indicator indicating a mapping order in the report, and wherein the resource set indicator indicates that a first resource index in the report is associated with the first resource set or the second resource set. However, Neumann sections [0050] teaches wherein a CSI report has a relative priority. For example, an aperiodic CSI report priority is higher than a semi-persistent CSI report. Therefore, associating or comparing different type of report with a priority order in the report is analogous to an indicator indicating the mapping order of the report. Further, Neumann section [0051] discloses a mapping order of the report to USI bit sequence in Table 6. For example, CSI report #1 is mapped to CSI resource 0 or 1. Hence, Neumann table 6 is analogous to resource index associated with resource set. Therefore, Neumann teaches the argued limitation.
Applicant contends that Neumann’s “stale/current” flag merely represents the freshness of the CSI report and therefore cannot serve as a resource-set indicator or mapping indicator. This is not persuasive. Neumann’s indicator is used by the receiving entity (e.g., the gNB) to determine how to interpret the CSI report based on the state of the report. The indicator functions as a control element that informs the receiver regarding the relevance, selection, or prioritization of data contained within the report. The indicator therefore alters the receiver’s interpretation of the CSI content and can reasonably be understood as mapping CSI content to a corresponding set or state used by the system.
Nothing in the claims requires the indicator to be expressly labeled as a “resource set indicator”; rather, it must indicate how to interpret report content relative to distinct resource sets or states. Neumann’s indicator fulfills this role by defining the interpretation pathway for different CSI conditions.
The Applicant asserts that Neumann’s indicator is “functionally and conceptually distinct” from the claimed mapping indicator. The Examiner disagrees. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the claimed “resource set indicator” encompasses any indicator that enables the receiving node to distinguish between different categories, sets, or states of CSI information within the report. Neumann’s stale/current flag provides such a distinction by conveying whether the CSI data corresponds to a first (current) or second (stale) condition—i.e., effectively mapping the CSI data into different sets of interpretive meaning. Thus, Neumann necessarily teaches an indicator that allows the receiver to associate the CSI information with one of at least two distinct states, which corresponds to assigning the data to different resource sets as broadly interpreted.
Applicant argues that no rationale exists to combine Shi and Neumann. This is not persuasive. Both references deal with improving the reliability and interpretation of CSI reporting in wireless systems. A person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate Neumann’s state-indicating mechanism into Shi’s CSI reporting framework to enhance robustness, reduce outdated reporting effects, and allow the receiver to appropriately select or interpret CSI data. Such motivations are consistent with KSR’s guidance that known solutions to similar problems provide sufficient rationale for a combination.
Because Neumann teaches an indicator enabling differentiated interpretation of CSI content, and because the combination with Shi would predictably yield the claimed functionality, Applicant’s arguments do not overcome the rejection.
The §103 rejection of the claims is therefore maintained.
Double Patenting
3. The non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b).
4. Claims 1 and 11 are rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 7 and 13 of co-pending Application 17/966,636. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1 and 11 limitation are found in claims 1, 7 and 13 of co-application with obvious wording variation such as they both sets of claims are drawn to a method, comprising: receiving, by a user equipment (UB), a report configuration from a network node, wherein the report configuration is associated with a first resource set and a second resource set.
17/840,860
17/966,636
1 and 11. A method, comprising:
receiving, by a user equipment (UB), a report configuration from a network node, wherein the report configuration is associated with a first resource set and a second resource set; determining, by the UE, at least one resource group, wherein each resource group comprises two reference-signal (RS) resources respectively corresponding to the first resource set and the second resource set; and
transmitting, by the UB, a report comprising the at least one resource group to the network node, wherein the report further comprises a resource set indicator indicating that a first resource index in the report is associated with the first resource set or the second resource set
1, 7 and 13. A method, comprising:
receiving, by a user equipment (UE), a report configuration from a network node, wherein the report configuration is associated with a resource set; determining, by the UE, at least one beam group based on the resource set, wherein each beam group comprises two reference-signal (RS) resources respectively associating with a first physical cell index (PCI) and a second PCI; and transmitting, by the UE, a report comprising the at least one beam group to the network node.
This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
6. Claim 1-7 and 11-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Shi et al. (US 2021/0274372 A1) in view of Neumann et al. (US 20230300641 A1).
Regarding claims 1 and 11. Shi teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a user equipment (UB), a report configuration from a network node, wherein the report configuration is associated with a first resource set and a second resource set (Paragraphs [0035], [0037], [0093-0094] teach terminal device received reporting information from network device associated with plurality resource setting));
determining, by the UE, at least one resource group, wherein each resource group comprises two reference-signal (RS) resources respectively corresponding to the first resource set and the second resource set (Paragraph [0026-0029], [0032-0033] teach two reference signal resource set and plurality of resource setting).
Shi is silent on
transmitting, by the UE, a report comprising the at least one resource group to the network node, wherein the report further comprises a resource set indicator indicating a mapping order in the report, and wherein the resource set indicator indicates that a first resource index in the report is associated with the first resource set or the second resource set.
In an analogous art, Neumann teaches
transmitting, by the UE, a report comprising the at least one resource group to the network node (UE 105 generates an uplink message 108 including the one or more CSI reports, e.g., the CSI report 123, and transmit the uplink message 108 to the base station, [0045]; and the CSI report 123 includes a first part 116 and a second part 117, where the second part 117 further includes group 0, group 1, and group 2, [0042]), wherein the report further comprises a resource set indicator indicating a mapping order in the report (multiple CSI reports have a relative priority according to a priority sequence below: a CSI report including layer 1 reference signal received power (L1-RSRP) or a signal to interference plus noise ratio (SINR)>a CSI report including other reportQuantity, where reportQuantity is configured in RRC as part of CSI report configuration; and an aperiodic (AP) CSI report>a semi-persistent (SP) CSI report carried by physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH)>a semi-persistent (SP) CSI report carried by physical uplink control channel (PUCCH)>a periodic CSI report carried by PUCCH, where a symbol “>” means “having higher priority.”, [0050]), and wherein the resource set indicator indicates that a first resource index in the report is associated with the first resource set or the second resource set (TABLE-US-00003 TABLE 6.3.1.1.2-12 Mapping order of CSI reports to UCI bit sequence, [0051]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Shi with Neumann’s system to further increase the transmission efficiency. In addition, when there is a priority among multiple CSI reports, efficiency may be gained when only one stale CSI report is included in the uplink message as suggested, Neumann [0048].
Regarding claims 2 and 12. Shi and Neumann teach the method of Claim 1, Shi teaches wherein in an event that the indicator corresponds to a first value, the first resource index in the report is associated with the first resource set, and in another event that the indicator corresponds to a second value, the first resource index in the report is associated with the second resource set (Paragraphs [0217-0219]).
Regarding claims 3 and 13. Shi and Neumann teach the method of Claim 1, Shi teaches wherein the first resource index in the report corresponds to the largest RSRP value or SINR value in the report (Paragraphs [0085], [0087], [0221]).
Regarding claims 4 and 14, Shi and Neumann teach the method of Claim 3, Shi teaches wherein a resource index other than the first resource index in the report corresponds to a corresponding differential value based on the largest RSRP value or SINR value (Paragraphs [0087], [0217-0219], [0247]).
Regarding claims 5 and 15. Shi and Neumann teach the method of Claim 1, Shi teaches wherein in an event that a periodic or semi-persistent resource configuration is associated with the report configuration, at least one resource set list in the periodic or semi-persistent resource configuration indicates a first resource set ID and a second resource set ID respectively corresponding to the first resource set and the second resource set (Paragraphs [0027], [0094-0096]).
Regarding claims 6 and 16. Shi and Neumann teach the method of Claim 1, Neumann teaches wherein the report configuration is associated with a report trigger state configuration, and the report trigger state configuration indicates a first index and a second index respectively corresponding to the first resource set and the second resource set (when the reporting setting 106 includes a semi-persistent setting or an aperiodic setting, the downlink message 102 may be a DCI to activate the semi-persistent setting or an aperiodic setting. As shown in FIG. 2, at a time instance t1, a DCI 202 may be received through a downlink, e.g., the downlink 103, to activate a semi-persistent CSI (SP-CSI) reporting for the UE, [0037] and Fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Shi with Neumann’s system to further increase the transmission efficiency. In addition, when there is a priority among multiple CSI reports, efficiency may be gained when only one stale CSI report is included in the uplink message as suggested, Neumann [0048].
Regarding claims 7 and 17. Shi and Neumann teach the method of Claim 1, Shi teaches wherein the UE is capable to simultaneously receive the RS resources in each resource group (Paragraphs [0015], [0018], [0138]).
7. Claim 8-10 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Shi et al. (US 2021/0274372 A1) in view of Neumann et al. (US 20230300641 A1) and further inv view of Gao et al. (US 20210022130 A1).
Regarding claims 8 and 18. Shi and Neumann teach the method of Claim 1 and the UE of claim 11.
However, Shi and Neumann do not teach wherein in the report, a reporting the mapping order associated with one resource group other than the resource group including the first resource index in the report is that the resource index associated with the first resource set is reported first, and then the resource index associated with the second resource set is reported.
In an analogous art, Gao teaches wherein in the report, a reporting the mapping order associated with one resource group other than the resource group including the first resource index in the report is that the resource index associated with the first resource set is reported first, and then the resource index associated with the second resource set is reported (determining RS indexes to be reported is based on one or more subsets of one or more resource sets, where the one or more subsets of one or more resource sets can depend on the RS resources that have been determined to be reported, e.g., k. For instance, a UE selects the first RS (e.g. by the best RSRP) from one or more lists (or pools) of RSs, e.g., one or more resource sets. Based on the first selected RS and the criteria depending on the selected RS, e.g., according to the subset generated by {A+k+B×N1}mod N, UE can updates the list by removing some RSs, e.g., with indexes of {A+k+B×N1 } mod N, from one list, e.g., one resource set, associated with the first selected RS; then, UE selects the 2nd RS (e.g. by the best RSRP) from the updated lists. Based on the 2nd selected RS and the criteria depending on the selected RS, the UE can update the list by removing some RSs from one associated list accordingly, etc. Thus, in some embodiments, one or more subsets of one or more resource sets can be determined based on a number of RS resources to be reported, [0091]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Shi and Neumann with Gao’s system such that a report comprising the at least one resource group to the network node, wherein the report further comprises a resource set indicator indicating that a first resource index in the report is associated with the first resource set or the second resource set in order to provide a more complex, sophisticated range of access and flexibilities.
Regarding claims 9 and 19. Shi and Neumann teach the method of Claim 1 and the UE of claim 11.
However, Shi and Neumann do not teach wherein in the report, a reporting the mapping order associated with one resource group other than the resource group including the first resource index is that the resource index associated with a smaller resource set ID is reported first, and then the resource index associated with a larger resource set ID is reported.
In an analogous art, Gao teaches wherein in the report, a reporting the mapping order associated with one resource group other than the resource group including the first resource index is that the resource index associated with a smaller resource set ID is reported first, and then the resource index associated with a larger resource set ID is reported (determining RS indexes to be reported is based on one or more subsets of one or more resource sets, where the one or more subsets of one or more resource sets can depend on the RS resources that have been determined to be reported, e.g., k. For instance, a UE selects the first RS (e.g. by the best RSRP) from one or more lists (or pools) of RSs, e.g., one or more resource sets. Based on the first selected RS and the criteria depending on the selected RS, e.g., according to the subset generated by {A+k+B×N1}mod N, UE can updates the list by removing some RSs, e.g., with indexes of {A+k+B×N1 } mod N, from one list, e.g., one resource set, associated with the first selected RS; then, UE selects the 2nd RS (e.g. by the best RSRP) from the updated lists. Based on the 2nd selected RS and the criteria depending on the selected RS, the UE can update the list by removing some RSs from one associated list accordingly, etc. Thus, in some embodiments, one or more subsets of one or more resource sets can be determined based on a number of RS resources to be reported, [0091]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Shi and Neumann with Gao’s system such that a report comprising the at least one resource group to the network node, wherein the report further comprises a resource set indicator indicating that a first resource index in the report is associated with the first resource set or the second resource set in order to provide a more complex, sophisticated range of access and flexibilities.
Regarding claims 10 and 20. Shi and Neumann teach the method of Claim 1 and the UE of claim 11.
However, Shi and Neumann do not teach wherein in the report, a reporting the mapping order associated with one resource group other than the resource group including the first resource index follows the reporting order associated with the resource group including the first resource index.
In an analogous art, Gao teaches wherein in the report, a reporting the mapping order associated with one resource group other than the resource group including the first resource index follows the reporting order associated with the resource group including the first resource index (determining RS indexes to be reported is based on one or more subsets of one or more resource sets, where the one or more subsets of one or more resource sets can depend on the RS resources that have been determined to be reported, e.g., k. For instance, a UE selects the first RS (e.g. by the best RSRP) from one or more lists (or pools) of RSs, e.g., one or more resource sets. Based on the first selected RS and the criteria depending on the selected RS, e.g., according to the subset generated by {A+k+B×N1}mod N, UE can updates the list by removing some RSs, e.g., with indexes of {A+k+B×N1 } mod N, from one list, e.g., one resource set, associated with the first selected RS; then, UE selects the 2nd RS (e.g. by the best RSRP) from the updated lists. Based on the 2nd selected RS and the criteria depending on the selected RS, the UE can update the list by removing some RSs from one associated list accordingly, etc. Thus, in some embodiments, one or more subsets of one or more resource sets can be determined based on a number of RS resources to be reported, [0091]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to modify Shi and Neumann with Gao’s system such that a report comprising the at least one resource group to the network node, wherein the report further comprises a resource set indicator indicating that a first resource index in the report is associated with the first resource set or the second resource set in order to provide a more complex, sophisticated range of access and flexibilities.
Conclusion
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
Conclusion
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICOLE M LOUIS-FILS whose telephone number is (571)270-0671. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday.
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, Charles Appiah can be reached at 571-272-7904. 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.
/NICOLE M LOUIS-FILS/Examiner, Art Unit 2641
/CHARLES N APPIAH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2641