DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the pending claims, 30-49, received 29 April 2025. Accordingly, the detailed action of claims 30-49 is as follows:
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 04/25/2025 are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 30-31, 33-35, 39-48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Matsumura et al (US 20240089773 A1, hereafter referred toas Matsumura).
Regarding claim 30, Matsumura teaches
a network device including at least a first Transmission and Reception Point (TRP) and a second TRP, the network device comprising:
at least one antenna (Matsumura [Fig 21-130]); at least one radio coupled to the at least one antenna (Matsumura [Fig 21-122]); and
a processor coupled to the at least one radio (Matsumura [gig 21-110, Fig 23-1001]);
wherein the network device is configured to:
generate a message used for a wireless device to perform Layer 1 Signal to Interference plus Noise Ratio (L1-SINR) measurement (Matsumura [0247 and 0038] discloses generating and transmitting a CSI report configuration to a terminal, the CSI report configuration is for channel measurement for L1-SINR calculation and reporting [0089]), wherein the L1-SINR measurement is related to inter-beam interference for beams associated with the first TRP and the second TRP (Matsumura [0197-0198] teaches the measurement and report is related to pairs of beams from two TRPs); and
wherein the message at least includes:
a first channel measurement resource (CMR) set including multiple first CMRs for the first TRP, and a first interference measurement resource (IMR) set including multiple first IMRs for the first TRP, which is corresponding to the first CMR set (Matsumura [0123 and 0129] discloses a first TRP associated with a set of CMRs and IMRs);
a second CMR set including multiple second CMRs for the second TRP, and a second IMR set including multiple second IMRs for the second TRP, which is corresponding to the second CMR set (Matsumura [0123 and 0129] teaches a second TRP associated with a set of CMRs and IMRs); and
relation information, indicating a first relation between the first CMR set and the second IMR set, and a second relation between the second CMR set and the first IMR set (Matsumura [0125] discloses a specific RRC parameter configuration which indicates the CMR for another TRP as the NZP-IMR for the first TRP and CMR for the first TRP as the NZP-IMR for the other TRP) ; and
send the message to the wireless device (Matsumura [0247 and 0038] teaches transmitting CSI report configuration to a terminal).
Regarding claim 31, Matsumura teaches the limitations of claim 30, as rejected above.
Additionally, Matsumura teaches the network device wherein:
each of the first CMRs in the first CMR set corresponds to one of the first IMRs in the first IMR set (Matsumura [0127-0128] teaches N CMR resources and N IMR resources wherein CMR resources are associated with IMR resources according to the order of the CMR and IMR resources [0084]), and each second CMRs in the second CMR set corresponds to one of the second IMRs in the second IMR set (Matsumura [0127-0128] teaches N CMR resources and N IMR resources wherein CMR resources are associated with IMR resources according to the order of the CMR and IMR resources [0084]); and
the relation information indicates Quasi Co-Location (QCL) relations between the first CMRs in the first CMR set and the second IMRs in the second IMR set, and QCL relations between the second CMRs in the second CMR set and the first IMRs in the first IMR set (Matsumura [0098-0099] teaches a resource for channel measurement (CMR) and a resource for interference measurement (IMR) are QCLed for each resource in the relation, wherein the CMR for a first TRP corresponds to the IMR for another TRP [0101, 0106 and 0125]).
Regarding claim 33, Matsumura teaches the limitations of claim 30, as rejected above.
Additionally, Matsumura teaches the network device wherein:
the relation information indicates that the second CMR set is used as the first IMR set, and the first CMR set is used as the second IMR set (Matsumura [0101 and 0106] teaches the CMR for another TRP as the IMR for a first TRP and the CMR for the first TRP as the IMR for the other TRP), and each of the first CMRs in the first CMR set correspond to one the second CMRs in the second CMR set (Matsumura [0085 and 0131] teaches a one to one mapping between the CMR and IMR associated with each other).
Regarding claim 34, Matsumura teaches the limitations of claim 30, as rejected above.
Additionally, Matsumura teaches the network device wherein:
at least one of the first CMRs and the second CMRs includes Synchronization Signal Block (SSB) or Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS) (Matsumura [0035-0036] teaches the RS used for CSI reporting includes CSI-RS and SSB) including periodic CSI-RS or semi-persistent CSI-RS (Matsumura [0093] teaches periodic or semi-persistent CSI is applied to each CSI report configuration), and at least one of the first IMRs and the second IMRs comprises a non-zero power (NZP) IMR (Matsumura [0108 and 0125] teaches using NZP-IMR), which includes the SSB or the CSI-RS (Matsumura [0105-106 and 0108] teaches using the SSB or CS-RS as the NZP-IMR for the second TRP) including the periodic CSI-RS or the semi-persistent CSI- RS (Matsumura [0093] teaches periodic or semi-persistent CSI is applied to each CSI report configuration).
Regarding claim 35, Matsumura teaches the limitations of claim 30, as rejected above.
Additionally, Matsumura teaches the network device wherein the network device is further configured to:
send additional information indicating configuring a first zero power (ZP) IMR for each of the first CMRs in the first CMR set and a second ZP IMR for each of the second CMRs in the second CMR set to the wireless device for use in the L1-SINR measurement (Matsumura [0095] teaches configuring two resource configurations wherein the second resource configuration is for interference measurement performed in a CSI-IM), wherein the first ZP IMR and the second ZP IMR includes Channel State Information Interference Measurement (CSI- IM) (Matsumura [0095] discloses a CSI-IM or ZP-IMR [0118]).
Regarding claim 39, Matsumura teaches a wireless device, comprising:
at least one antenna (Matsumura [Fig 22-230]);
at least one radio coupled to the at least one antenna (Matsumura [Fig 22-222]); and
one or more processor coupled to the at least one radio (Matsumura [Fig 22-210 and Fig 23-1001]); wherein the one or more processors are configured to cause the wireless device to:
receive, from a network device including at least a first Transmission and Reception Point (TRP) and a second TRP, a message (Matsumura [0247] teaches transmitting a CSI report configuration to a terminal, wherein the base station includes a plurality of TRPs) used for the wireless device to perform Layer 1 Signal to Interference plus Noise Ratio (L1-SINR) measurement (Matsumura [0089] teaches the resource configuration is for L1-SINR calculation); and
perform the L1-SINR measurement with respect to multiple CMR pairs at least based on the received message (Matsumura [0121] teaches performing interference measurements for TRPs such that the UE measures N pairs of pieces of CSI form the two TRPs [0131]), wherein the L1-SINR measurement is related to inter- beam interference for beams associated with the first TRP and the second TRP (Matsumura [0197-0198] teaches the measurement and report is related to pairs of beams from two TRPs).
The additional limitations directed to details of the message do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 30.
Therefore, the additional limitations are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 30.
Regarding claim 40, it does not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claim 31.
Therefore, claim 40 is rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claim 31.
Regarding claim 41, Matsumura teaches the limitations of claim 40, as rejected above.
Additionally, Matsumura teaches the wireless device wherein:
each CMR pair of the multiple CMR pairs for the L1-SINR measurement includes one of the first CMRs in the first CMR set and one of the second CMRs in the second CMR set (Matsumura [0130-0131]), and the first IMR in the first IMR set corresponding to the one of the first CMRs in the first CMR set is QCLed with the one of the second CMRs in the second CMR set, and the second IMR in the second IMR set corresponding to the one of the second CMRs in the second CMR set is QCLed with the one of the first CMRs in the first CMR set (Matsumura [0098-0099] teaches a resource for channel measurement (CMR) and a resource for interference measurement (IMR) are QCLed for each resource in the relation, wherein the CMR for a first TRP corresponds to the IMR for another TRP [0101, 0106 and 0125]).
Regarding claims 42, 44 and 47, they do not teach or further limit over the limitations presented above with respect to claims 32, 33 and 34.
Therefore claims 42, 44 and 47 are rejected for the same reasons set forth above regarding claims 32, 33 and 34.
Regarding claim 43, Matsumura teaches the limitations of claim 42, as rejected above.
Additionally, Matsumura teaches the wireless device wherein:
each CMR pair of the multiple CMR pairs for the L1-SINR measurement includes one of the first CMRs in the first CMR set and one of the second CMRs in the second CMR set (Matsumura [0130-0131]), and one of the first IMRs in the first IMR set corresponding to the one of the first CMRs in the first CMR set is QCLed with the one of the second CMRs in the second CMR set, and one of the second IMRs in the second IMR set corresponding to the one of the second CMRs in the second CMR set is QCLed with the one of the first CMRs in the first CMR set (Matsumura [0098-0099] teaches a resource for channel measurement (CMR) and a resource for interference measurement (IMR) are QCLed for each resource in the relation, wherein the CMR for a first TRP corresponds to the IMR for another TRP [0101, 0106 and 0125]).
Regarding claim 45, Matsumura teaches the limitations of claim 44, as rejected above.
Additionally, Matsumura teaches the wireless device wherein:
each CMR pair of the multiple CMR pairs for the L1-SINR measurement includes one of the first CMRs in the first CMR set and one of the second CMRs in the second CMR set (Matsumura [0130-0131]), and the one of the second CMRs in the second CMR set is used as a first selected IMR corresponding to the one of the first CMRs in the first CMR set, and the one of the first CMRs in the first CMR set is used as a second selected IMR corresponding to the one of the second CMRs in the second CMR set (Matsumura [0101, 0105-0106 and 0125]).
Regarding claim 46, Matsumura teaches the limitations of claim 39, as rejected above.
Additionally, Matsumura teaches the wireless device wherein:
performing the L1-SINR measurement includes:
for each CMR pair of the multiple CMR pairs including one of the first CMRs in the first CMR set and one of the second CMRs in the second CMR set (Matsumura [0131-132] discloses measuring N pairs and reporting after the measurement of each pair):
using one receive (Rx) beam to receive the one of the first CMRs in the first CMR set and one or more of the first IMRs in the first IMR set corresponding to the one of the first CMRs in the first CMR set that is QCLed with the one of the second CMRs in the second CMR set (Matsumura [0130-0131] teaches measuring the pieces of CSI from two TRPs wherein each pair includes a CMR associated with each TRP and IMR of the other TRP [0101, 0105-0106 and 0125], wherein the CMR and IMR are QCLed [0098-0099]); and
using another Rx beam to receive (Matsumura [0198] teaches the UE measures each CSI pair of beams from two TRPs) the one of the second CMRs in the second CMR set and one or more of the second IMRs in the second IMR set corresponding to the one of the second CMRs in the second CMR set that is QCLed with the one of the first CMRs in the first CMR set (Matsumura [0130-0131] teaches measuring the pieces of CSI from two TRPs wherein each pair includes a CMR associated with each TRP and IMR of the other TRP [0101, 0105-0106 and 0125], wherein the CMR and IMR are QCLed [0098-0099]).
Regarding claim 48, Matsumura teaches the limitations of claim 47, as rejected above.
Additionally, Matsumura teaches the wireless device wherein the wireless device is further configured to:
receive additional information from the network device, wherein the additional information indicates configuring a first zero power (ZP) IMR for each of the first CMRs in the first CMR set and a second ZP IMR configured for each of the second CMRs in the second CMR set (Matsumura [0095] teaches configuring two resource configurations wherein the second resource configuration is for interference measurement performed in a CSI-IM); and
perform the L1-SINR measurement further based on the additional information (Matsumura [0121] teaches performing interference measurements for TRPs such that the UE measures N pairs of pieces of CSI form the two TRPs [0131]), wherein the first ZP IMR and the second ZP IMR includes Channel State Information Interference Measurement (CSI-IM) (Matsumura [0095] discloses a CSI-IM or ZP-IMR [0118]).
Claim 32 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al (US 20240089773 A1, hereafter referred to as Matsumura) as applied above regarding claim 30, further in view of Zhang et al (WO 2020143748 A9, hereafter referred to Zhang).
Regarding claim 32, Matsumura teaches the limitations of claim 30, as rejected above.
Additionally, Matsumura teaches the network device wherein the relation information indicates Quasi Co-Location (QCL) relations between the first CMRs in the first CMR set and the second IMRs in the second IMR set, and QCL relations between the second CMRs in the second CMR set and the first IMRs in the first IMR set (Matsumura [0098-0099] teaches a resource for channel measurement (CMR) and a resource for interference measurement (IMR) are QCLed for each resource in the relation, wherein the CMR for a first TRP corresponds to the IMR for another TRP [0101, 0106 and 0125]).
However, Matsumura does not explicitly teach the network device wherein:
at least one of the first CMRs in the first CMR set corresponds to multiple of the first IMRs in the first IMR set, or at least one of the second CMRs in the second CMR set corresponds to multiple of the second IMRs in the second IMR set.
Zhang, in an analogous art, teaches at least one of the first CMRs in the first CMR set corresponds to multiple of the first IMRs in the first IMR set, or at least one of the second CMRs in the second CMR set corresponds to multiple of the second IMRs in the second IMR set (Zhang [0117] teaches a configuration with one CMR and multiple IMRs).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsumura in view of Zhang in order to configure CMR and IMR relationship, as taught by Matsumura, include at least one of the first CMRs in the first CMR set corresponds to multiple of the first IMRs in the first IMR set, or at least one of the second CMRs in the second CMR set corresponds to multiple of the second IMRs in the second IMR set, as taught by Zhang.
KSR rationale B, simple substitution of one known element (a one-to-one relationship between CMR and IMR, as taught by Matsumura) for another known element (a one-to-many relationship between CMR and IMR, as taught by Zhang) in order to yield predictable results (perform measurement of reference signals and report to a network node) supports the conclusion of obviousness.
Claim 36 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al (US 20240089773 A1, hereafter referred to as Matsumura) as applied above regarding claim 30, further in view of Zirwas (WO 2022078790 A1, hereafter referred to as Zirwas).
Regarding claim 36, Matsumura teaches the limitations of claim 30, as rejected above.
However, Matsumura does not explicitly teach the network device wherein:
the message is generated based on priori information, which includes at least a report of previous L1 Reference Signal Received Power (LT-RSRP) measurement performed by the wireless device associated with the first TRP and the second TRP.
Zirwas, in an analogous art, teaches the network device wherein:
the message is generated based on priori information, which includes at least a report of previous L1 Reference Signal Received Power (LT-RSRP) measurement performed by the wireless device with a TRP (Zirwas [85] teaches reallocating beams based on received reported CSI measurements for previous CSI-RS transmission, wherein the received reported CSI measurements includes SNIR [84]).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsumura in view of Zirwas in order to configure the message, as taught by Matsumura, be generated based on priori information, which includes at least a report of previous L1 Reference Signal Received Power (LT-RSRP) measurement performed by the wireless device with a TRP, as taught by Zirwas.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to improve and optimize allocation of resources based on previous resource CSI measurements are below a desired quality threshold (Zirwas [85]).
Claims 37-38 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al (US 20240089773 A1, hereafter referred to as Matsumura) in view of Zirwas (WO 2022078790 A1, hereafter referred to as Zirwas) as applied above regarding claim 36, further in view of Ahmed et al (US 20210385828 A1, hereafter referred to as Ahmed).
Regarding claim 37, Matsumura teaches the limitations of claim 30, as rejected above.
However, Matsumura does not explicitly teach the network device wherein the network device is further configured to: update the message based on at least one of the following: a CMR change, an IMR change, or a relation information change included in the message; and a change of the priori information.
Ahmed, in an analogous art, teaches the network device wherein the network device is further configured to:
update the message based on at least one of the following: a CMR change, an IMR change, or a relation information change included in the message (Ahmed [0070] teaches dynamic changes in the CSI resources causing a change and updating signaling to the UE regarding channel measurement resources [0051, 0053]); and a change of the priori information.
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsumura-Zirwas in view of Ahmed in order to configure the network device, as taught by Matsumura-Zirwas, to update the message based on at least one of the following: a CMR change, an IMR change, or a relation information change included in the message; and a change of the priori information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to permit a gNB to dynamically configure the CSI resource in an event where a new UE arrives or a schedule change occurs (Ahmed [0070]) permitting the UE to use the updated mapping to receive CSI-RS on new locations for measurement and reporting (Ahmed [0108, 0124 and 0125]).
Regarding claim 38, Matsumura-Zirwas-Ahmed teaches the limitations of claim 37, as rejected above.
Additionally, Matsumura-Zirwas-Ahmed teaches the network device wherein the network device is further configured to:
send the message or the updated message to the wireless device via Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling (Matsumura [0038] discloses CSI report configuration via RRC. Ahmed [0124, 0125 or 0108] teaches CSI-RS mapping in RRC) or Medium Access Control (MAC) Control Element (CE) (Ahmed [0064, 0108] teaches updated user equipment specific channel measurement resources signaled via MAC CE).
Claim 49 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumura et al (US 20240089773 A1, hereafter referred to as Matsumura) as applied above regarding claim 39, further in view of Kim et al (US 20220256561 A1, hereafter referred to as Kim).
Regarding claim 49, Matsumura teaches the limitations of claim 39, as rejected above.
However, Matsumura does not explicitly teach the wireless device wherein the wireless device is further configured to: for another CMR pair which does not belong to the multiple CMR pairs used to perform the L1-SINR measurement: do not generate a first report of the LI -SINR measurement for the another CMR pair: or generate a second report of the L1-SINR measurement for the another CMR pair. and the second report does not include information related to the inter-beam interference for the beams associated with the first TRP and the second TRP.
Kim, in an analogous art, teaches the wireless device wherein the wireless device is further configured to:
for another CMR pair which does not belong to the multiple CMR pairs used to perform the L1-SINR measurement (Kim [0273 and 0008] teaches one or more CRMS used to derive CSI, wherein any CMR included in the one or more CMR pairs is not used to derive the CSI):
do not generate a first report of the LI -SINR measurement for the another CMR pair; or
generate a second report of the L1-SINR measurement for the another CMR pair and the second report does not include information related to the inter-beam interference for the beams associated with the first TRP and the second TRP (Kim [0301, 0304] teaches CSI reporting using only CMRs that do not belong to CMR pairs).
It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsumura in view of Kim in order to configure the wireless device, as taught by Matsumura, to generate a second report of the L1-SINR measurement for the another CMR pair. and the second report does not include information related to the inter-beam interference for the beams associated with the first TRP and the second TRP for another CMR pair which does not belong to the multiple CMR pairs used to perform the L1-SINR measurement, as taught by Kim.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to perform more suitable link adaptation and improve the wireless communication system performance (Kim [0012]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 29 April 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 30, applicant argues:
“The cited reference Matsumura does not teach or suggest "wherein the message at least includes: ... relation information, indicating a first relation between the first CMR set and the second IMR set, and a second relation between the second CMR set and the first IM R set," as recited in claim 30.” Remarks pg 10
During patent examination, the pending claims must be “given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification.” >The Federal Circuit’s en banc decision in Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303, 75 USPQ2d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2005) expressly recognized that the USPTO employs the “broadest reasonable interpretation” standard.
Although< claims of issued patents are interpreted in light of the specification, prosecution history, prior art and other claims, this is not the mode of claim interpretation to be applied during examination. During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (The USPTO uses a different standard for construing claims than that used by district courts; during\ examination the USPTO must give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation >in light of the specification<.). This means that the words of the claim must be given their plain meaning unless **>the plain meaning is inconsistent with< the specification. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989) (discussed below); Chef America, Inc. v. Lamb-Weston, Inc., 358 F.3d 1371, 1372, 69 USPQ2d 1857 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
[T]he ordinary and customary meaning of a claim term is the meaning that the term would have to a person of ordinary skill in the art in question at the time of the invention, i.e., as of the effective filing date of the patent application. Phillips v. AWH Corp.,*>415 F.3d 1303, 1313<, 75 USPQ2d 1321>, 1326< (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc).
The ordinary and customary meaning of a term may be evidenced by a variety of sources, >including “the words of the claims themselves, the remainder of the specification, the prosecution history, and extrinsic evidence concerning relevant scientific principles, the meaning of technical terms, and the state of the art.”< Phillips v. AWH Corp., *>415 F.3d at 1314<, 75 USPQ2d **>at 1327.< If extrinsic reference sources, such as dictionaries, evidence more than one definition for the term, the intrinsic record must be consulted to identify which of the different possible definitions is most consistent with applicant’s use of the terms. Brookhill-Wilk 1, 334 F. 3d at 1300, 67 USPQ2d at 1137; see also Renishaw PLC v. Marposs Societa ' per Azioni, 158 F.3d 1243, 1250, 48 USPQ2d 1117, 1122 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites in part, “wherein the message at least includes: ... relation information, indicating a first relation between the first CMR set and the second IMR set, and a second relation between the second CMR set and the first IM R set, which based upon broadest reasonable interpretation indicates, a message includes information indicating a relation between a first CMR set and second IMR set and a relation between a second CMR set and a first IMR set. Matsumura teaches a message (Matsumura [0125 and 0038-0039] teaches a RRC parameter) includes information indicating a relation between a first CMR set and second IMR set and a relation between a second CMR set and a first IMR set (Matsumura [0125] teaches a specific RRC parameter indicates the CMR for another TRP as the IMR for a first TRP and a second relation wherein a CMR for the first TRP as the IMR for the another TRP).
Regarding claim 30, applicant argues:
“The parameter disclosed in Matsumura indicates to the UE to assume the CMR for another TRP as the NZP-IMR for the first TRP, but the RRC parameter of Matsumura does not include any information on how the CMR for the TRP relates to the NZP-IMR for the first TRP.” Remarks pg 11
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees according to the reasons set forth above responsive to applicant’s pervious arguments pertaining to claim 30. Specifically, Matsumura [0125] teaches configuring a RRC parameter, provided in to the UE for report configuration [0038-0039]), which indicates to the UE the CMR for another or second TRP is the IMR for a first TRP and the IMR for the another or second TRP is the CMR for the first TRP.
Regarding claim 30, applicant argues:
“However, in claim 30 the message generated by the network device for the wireless device includes the "relation information indicating a first relation between the first CMR set and the second IMR set," and thus cannot be related to the RRC parameter disclosed in Matsumura.” Remarks pg 11
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees according to the reasons set forth above responsive to applicant’s pervious arguments pertaining to claim 30. Specifically, the claim recites in part, “wherein the message at least includes: ... relation information, indicating a first relation between the first CMR set and the second IMR set, and a second relation between the second CMR set and the first IM R set, which based upon broadest reasonable interpretation indicates, a message includes information indicating a relation CMR and IMR sets of a first and second TRP. Matsumura teaches a message (Matsumura [0125 and 0038-0039] teaches a RRC parameter) includes information indicating a relation between a first CMR set and second IMR set and a relation between a second CMR set and a first IMR set (Matsumura [0125] teaches a specific RRC parameter indicates the CMR for another TRP as the IMR for a first TRP and a second relation wherein a CMR for the first TRP as the IMR for the another TRP).
Regarding claim 39, applicant argues:
“Claim 39, although differing in scope, recites subject matter analogous to that of claim 30 and is therefore allowable for at least the same reasons.” Remarks pg 11
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees according to the reasons set forth above regarding claim 30 of which claim 39 has similar arguments.
Regarding claim 36, applicant argues:
“however Zirwas is similarly silent as to the subject matter of claim 36…..However Zirwas does not teach or suggest that "the message is generated based on priori information, which includes at least a report of previous L1 Reference Signal Received Power (L1-RSRP) measurement performed by the wireless device associated with the first TRP and the second TRP," as recited in claim 36. (Emphasis Added). Zirwas is completely silent as to the UE of Zirwas being associated with any TRP, let alone a first TRP and a second TRP as recited in claim 36.” Remarks pg 11
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees. Matsumura teaches a report of L1-RSRP measurement performed by the wireless device associated with the first and second TRP (Matsumura [0144-0145] teaches measuring and reporting for two TRPs, wherein the resource configuration is for L1-RSRP calculation [0089]). However, Matsumura does not explicitly teach the message is generated based on priori information which includes a report of previous L1-RSRP measurement. Zirwas, in an analogous art, teaches message is generated based on priori information which includes a report of previous L1-RSRP measurement for a TRP (Zirwas [85] teaches reallocating beams based on received reported CSI measurements for previous CSI-RS transmission, wherein the received reported CSI measurements includes SNIR [84]). It would have been obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Matsumura in view of Zirwas in order to configure the message associated with the L1-RSRP measurements performed by a UE associated with a plurality of TRPs including at least a first and second TRP, as taught by Matsumura, be generated based on priori information, which includes at least a report of previous L1 Reference Signal Received Power (L1-RSRP) measurement performed by the wireless device with a TRP, as taught by Zirwas to produce the subject matter of claim 36. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated in order to improve and optimize allocation of resources based on previous resource CSI measurements are below a desired quality threshold (Zirwas [85]).
Regarding claim 37, applicant argues:
“however Ahmed is similarly silent as to the subject matter of claim 37…….Ahmed is silent as to updating any message based on "a CMR change, an IMR change, or a relation information change included in the message; and a change of the priori information," as recited in claim 37.
In response the examiner respectfully disagrees. The claim recites, in part, update the message based on at least one of: a CMR change, an IMR change, or a relation information change included in the message; and a change of the priori information” which based upon broadest reasonable interpretation indicates updating a message based on a CMR change, wherein the CMR may be CSI-RS (applicant’s specification [0148]). Ahmed teaches updating a message based on a CMR change wherein the CMR may be CSI-RS (Ahmed [0053, 0070] teaches an indication from the gNB including dynamic signaling functionality to allow a gNB to inform a UE of new shifted CSI report resource mapping).
Conclusion
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SHEAN TOKUTA whose telephone number is (571)272-5145. The examiner can normally be reached M-TH 630-430.
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, Brian Gillis can be reached at 5712727952. 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.
SHEAN TOKUTA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2446
/SHEAN TOKUTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights