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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/16/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/16/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s arguments regarding the written description rejection of claims 16 and 31 are not persuasive because the applicant did not provide any evidence for their assertions about what would be “readily understood” and their reasoning for reaching such a conclusion. The arguments regarding the prior art are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection. The previous 112(b) and (d) rejections have been withdrawn in view of the applicant’s clarifying amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 16 and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 16 and 31 cover a report that “comprises CSI part 1”. The applicant’s disclosure uses the term CSI “part 1” but does not define it. CSI is defined as channel state information but the applicant has not defined any “part 1” of channel state information nor is the term well known in the art. The applicant has not provided a written description of how to report CSI part 1. The disclosure contains such words but the meaning of such words is not described or able to be ascertained based on the disclosure and what is known in the art. See sections 2161.01(I) and 2162 of the MPEP.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 12, 14-16, 19, 26, 28-31, and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO International Publication Number WO 2021/149017 by Jung et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0218462 by Shi et al.
As to claim 1, Jung teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a wireless communication device (UE 110) from a wireless communication node, a configuration for a plurality of downlink (DL) reference signals (RSs) (ref. no. 310 in Figure 3 and paragraph 105); receiving, by the wireless communication device, at least one of the plurality of DL RSs (ref. no. 320 in Figure 3 and paragraph 105, the plurality of DL RSs cannot be measured if they are not first received); and sending, by the wireless communication device to the wireless communication node, a report (ref. no. 340 in Figure 3 and paragraph 105), wherein the report includes a channel quality parameter (paragraph 72, layer indicator measurements. See paragraph 9 of the applicant’s specification), a RS index (paragraph 72), however Jung does not explicitly teach that the report includes a timestamp, wherein the timestamp comprises a time instance, and wherein the channel quality parameter or the RS index is associated with the timestamp.
Shi teaches the creation of a report including a timestamp, wherein the timestamp comprises a time instance, and wherein the RS index is associated with the timestamp (paragraphs 127 and 131, in paragraph 131 element 5 shows how a RS index can be reported with corresponding time instance shown as element 6).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the transmission medium management art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Jung regarding measuring and reporting channel quality with the teachings of Shi regarding reporting a time instance with an RS index because Shi shows how such information could be included in a report and this information is already present in Jung, as Jung already reports the RS index and knows what time that it made the measurements so including this time in the report would not alter the operation of Jung in any significant manner.
As to claim 19, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
As to claims 12 and 28, see paragraph 72 of Jung (CRI referenced in paragraph 72 is defined as channel state information reference signal resource index on page 33) and paragraph 131 of Shi.
As to claims 14 and 29, see paragraphs 42-44 and 72 of Jung.
As to claims 15 and 30, see paragraph 72 of Jung.
As to claims 16 and 31, paragraph 72 of Jung reads on the applicant’s description of “part 1” on page 6 of the 12/16/2025 remarks.
As to claim 26, see paragraph 72 of Jung.
As to claim 34, see paragraph 73 of Jung shows the final alternative.
Claim(s) 17, 25, 27, 32, and 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WIPO International Publication Number WO 2021/149017 by Jung et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0218462 by Shi et al. in further view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0341152 by Kim et al.
As to claims 17 and 32, the Jung-Shi combination teaches the subject matter of claims 1 and 19; however, the Jung-Shi combination does not teach the subject matter of claims 17 and 32.
Kim teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a wireless communication device from a wireless communication node, a configuration for a plurality of downlink (DL) reference signals (RSs) (paragraph 200, the reporting period and reporting time are a “configuration”); receiving, by the wireless communication device, at least one of the plurality of DL RSs (paragraph 158); and sending, by the wireless communication device to the wireless communication node, a report, wherein the report includes a timestamp, that comprises a time instance (paragraphs 201 and 224), and wherein a channel quality parameter (CSI), in the report, is determined according to the timestamp (paragraph 201); and reporting, by the wireless communication device a DL RS with a best metric at a given timestamp, relative to one or more of N DL RSs and one of the N DL RSs is associated with a timestamp, where N is a positive integer (paragraphs 190 and 194, metrics are provided according to time instances and periods including any “best” metric).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the transmission medium management art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Jung regarding user equipment providing a report with the teachings of Kim regarding providing metrics which correspond to timestamps because information added to a report provides the base station with useful information about the transmission medium.
As to claim 25, the Jung-Shi combination teaches the subject matter of claim 1; however, the Jung-Shi combination does not teach the subject matter of claim 25.
Kim teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a wireless communication device from a wireless communication node, a configuration for a plurality of downlink (DL) reference signals (RSs) (paragraph 200, the reporting period and reporting time are a “configuration”); receiving, by the wireless communication device, at least one of the plurality of DL RSs (paragraph 158); and sending, by the wireless communication device to the wireless communication node, a report, wherein the report includes a timestamp, that comprises a time instance (paragraphs 201 and 224), and wherein a channel quality parameter (CSI), in the report, is determined according to the timestamp (paragraph 201), the report further comprises a first DL resource, wherein the first DL resource is associated with an earlier timestamp relative to the timestamp (paragraphs 190 and 194).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the transmission medium management art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Jung regarding user equipment providing a report with the teachings of Kim regarding providing metrics which correspond to timestamps because information added to a report provides the base station with useful information about the transmission medium.
As to claim 27, the Jung-Shi combination teaches the subject matter of claim 1; however, the Jung-Shi combination does not teach the subject matter of claim 27.
Kim teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a wireless communication device from a wireless communication node, a configuration for a plurality of downlink (DL) reference signals (RSs) (paragraph 200, the reporting period and reporting time are a “configuration”); receiving, by the wireless communication device, at least one of the plurality of DL RSs (paragraph 158); and sending, by the wireless communication device to the wireless communication node, a report, wherein the report includes a timestamp, that comprises a time instance (paragraphs 201 and 224), and wherein a channel quality parameter (CSI), in the report, is determined according to the timestamp (paragraph 201), wherein a CSI request codepoint in a DCI is associated with two or more DL RS resources of the plurality of DL RSs (paragraphs 79, 121, 134, 135, and 173-175).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the transmission medium management art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Jung regarding user equipment providing a report with the teachings of Kim regarding providing CSI request codepoint in a DCI being associated with two or more DL RS because such information can could be relevant to the transmission medium and thus provided to the UE for reporting configuration.
As to claim 33, the Jung-Shi combination teaches the subject matter of claim 1; Jung teaches selecting N DL RSs from a plurality of DL RSs (Abstract); however, the Jung-Shi combination does not teach the subject matter of claim 33.
Kim shows receiving RRC signaling to define configuration of report (paragraph 194).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the transmission medium management art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Jung regarding providing configuration information for reporting with the teachings of Kim regarding using RRC for this purpose because RRC signaling is ubiquitous in the context of communication between the base station and UE taught by Jung.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454