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 Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/12/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding 103 rejection of claims 1, 28, 45, Applicant argues in substance that Kang, Ramireddy fail to disclose “...a first configuration identifying CSI-RS repetitions…a second configuration specifies a type of CSI-RS repetition…”
In response to argument, Examiner respectfully disagree. Ramireddy discloses “CSI-RS-BurstDuration” configuration separate from CSI-RS configuration and CSI report configuration for configuring inter slot repetition of CSI-RS.
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.
Claims 1, 28, 45 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 1, 28, 45 recite the limitation “…a second configuration specifies a type of CSI-RS repetition for the identified CSI-RS repetitions…” which does not seem to be supported by the instant application. Specification does not mention a “second configuration” and FIG. 5 only indicates a single configuration (#502) received by UE.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 11, 28, 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “…the configuration” which makes the claim indefinite. It’s unclear if this recitation of configuration refers to “first configuration” or “second configuration”. Examiner will interpret as best understood.
Claims 28, 25 are also rejected for the same reason set forth in claim 1 above.
Claims 3-27, 30 are rejected for claiming dependency from above rejected claims 1, 28 respectively.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “…the configuration” which makes the claim indefinite. It’s unclear if this recitation of configuration refers to “first configuration” or “second configuration”. Examiner will interpret as best understood.
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, 12, 20, 24, 45 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang et al (USPN 20190058517) in view of Ramireddy et al (EP 3576361 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Kang discloses
a method for wireless communications by a user equipment (UE), comprising: (method of communications by UE [0121-0126], FIG. 6
receiving, from a network entity, a first configuration identifying channel state information (CSI) reference signal (RS) (CSI-RS) repetitions over which a CSI report is to be generated (UE receiving CSI-RS configuration from gNB comprising repetition information for CSI reporting [0151-0163], Table 4, FIG. 6
receiving CSI-RS repetitions according to the configuration (UE receiving CSI-RS repetitions [0171], FIG. 6
measuring CSI based on the received CSI-RS repetition (measuring CSI based on repetition configuration [0170, 0171], FIG. 9
transmitting the CSI report including the measured CSI to the network entity (UE reports CSI information to gNB [0178], FIG. 9
Kang does not expressly disclose wherein a second configuration specifies a type of CSI-RS repetition for the identified CSI-RS repetitions comprising one of inter-slot based CSI-RS or intra-slot based CSI-RS repetition
Ramireddy discloses wherein a second configuration specifies a type of CSI-RS repetition for the identified CSI-RS repetitions comprising one of inter-slot based CSI-RS or intra-slot based CSI-RS repetition (UE receives CSI-RS-BurstDuration comprising configuration for inter slot CSI-RS repetition [0255-0257], FIGs. 16(b), 17
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein a second configuration specifies a type of CSI-RS repetition for the identified CSI-RS repetitions comprising one of inter-slot based CSI-RS or intra-slot based CSI-RS repetition” as taught by Ramireddy into Kang’s system with the motivation to allow UE to receive CSI-RS transmitted with repetition for increased resiliency.
Regarding claim 20, Kang discloses “wherein the CSI-RS repetitions are configured as a sequence of CSI-RSs in a transfer domain” CSI-RS repetitions are transmitted via DFT functions [0084-0088]
Regarding claim 12, Kang discloses “wherein the report is generated based on a CSI reference resource defined for the CSI-RS repetitions” CSI report generated based on CSI-RS repetitions [0153-0163], Tables 4, 5, 7
Regarding claim 24, Kang discloses “wherein spreading the sequence of CSI-RSs in the transfer domain into time domain comprises spreading the sequence of CSI-RSs in the transfer domain using a linear operation” CSI-RS repetitions are transmitted via DFT functions [0084-0088]
Regarding claim 45, Kang discloses
A user equipment (UE) configured for wireless communications, comprising: (UE configured for wireless communications [0707-0715], FIG. 22
memory; and one or more processors coupled to the memory, the one or more processors being configured to cause the UE to: (processor, FIG. 22 #2221, configured to execute instructions stored in memory, FIG. 22 #2222 [0710-0713, 0741]
receiving, from a network entity, a configuration identifying channel state information (CSI) reference -signal (RS) (CSI-RS) repetitions over which a CSI report is to be generated (UE receiving CSI-RS configuration from gNB comprising repetition information for CSI reporting [0151-0163], Table 4, FIG. 6
receive the CSI-RS repetitions according to the configuration (UE receiving CSI-RS repetitions [0171], FIG. 6
measure CSI based on the received CSI-RS repetition (measuring CSI based on repetition configuration [0170, 0171], FIG. 9
transmit the CSI report including the measured CSI to the network entity (UE reports CSI information to gNB [0178], FIG. 9
Kang does not expressly disclose wherein a second configuration specifies a type of CSI-RS repetition for the identified CSI-RS repetitions comprising one of inter-slot based CSI-RS or intra-slot based CSI-RS repetition
Ramireddy discloses wherein a second configuration specifies a type of CSI-RS repetition for the identified CSI-RS repetitions comprising one of inter-slot based CSI-RS or intra-slot based CSI-RS repetition (UE receives CSI-RS-BurstDuration comprising configuration for inter slot CSI-RS repetition [0255-0257], FIGs. 16(b), 17
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein a second configuration specifies a type of CSI-RS repetition for the identified CSI-RS repetitions comprising one of inter-slot based CSI-RS or intra-slot based CSI-RS repetition” as taught by Ramireddy into Kang’s system with the motivation to allow UE to receive CSI-RS transmitted with repetition for increased resiliency.
Claims 7-9, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Ramireddy and in further view of Noh et al (WO 2020036433 A1), with translation previously provided.
Regarding claim 7, combined system of Kang and Park does not expressly disclose “wherein the CSI-RS repetitions comprise a number of CSI-RS ports spanning frequency resources across multiple physical resource blocks (PRBs)”
Noh discloses CSI-RS ports spanning multiple frequency resources across PRBs (pages 19-21), FIGs. 10C, 10D
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the CSI-RS repetitions comprise a number of CSI-RS ports spanning frequency resources across multiple physical resource blocks (PRBs)” as taught by Noh into combined system of Kang and Ramireddy with the motivation to allow transmission of CSI-RS with a well known and accepted way for easy implementation
Regarding claim 8, combined system of Kang and Ramireddy does not expressly disclose “wherein the CSI-RS repetitions are based on a number of physical resource block (PRB)-level combs”
Noh discloses CSI-RS repetitions across multiple PRBs (pages 19-21), FIGs. 10C, 10D
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the CSI-RS repetitions are based on a number of physical resource block (PRB)-level combs” as taught by Noh into combined system of Kang and Ramireddy with the motivation to allow transmission of CSI-RS with a well known and accepted way for easy implementation
Regarding claim 9, combined system of Kang and Ramireddy does not expressly disclose “wherein the CSI-RS repetitions comprise a staggered CSI-RS pattern across repetitions such that a first CSI-RS repetition is carried on a first frequency resource and a second CSI-RS repetition is carried on a second frequency resource”
Noh discloses CSI-RS repetitions across PRBs (pages 19-21), FIGs. 10C, 10D
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the CSI-RS repetitions comprise a staggered CSI-RS pattern across repetitions such that a first CSI-RS repetition is carried on a first frequency resource and a second CSI-RS repetition is carried on a second frequency resource” as taught by Noh into combined system of Kang and Ramireddy with the motivation to allow transmission of CSI-RS with a well known and accepted way for easy implementation
Regarding claim 13, combined system of Kang and Ramireddy does not expressly disclose “wherein the CSI reference resource is defined in relation to a frequency domain resource assignment or a time domain resource assignment for the CSI-RS repetitions”
Noh discloses CSI reference source defined in relation with frequency (pages 19-21), Table, 12, FIGs. 10C, 10D
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the CSI reference resource is defined in relation to a frequency domain resource assignment or a time domain resource assignment for the CSI-RS repetitions” as taught by Noh into combined system of Kang and Ramireddy with the motivation to allow transmission of CSI-RS with a well known and accepted way for easy implementation
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Ramireddy and in further view of Jung et al (USPN 20180279145), hereafter Jung’145.
Regarding claim 10, combined system of Kang and Ramireddy does not expressly disclose “wherein the UE assumes a same quasi-colocation (QCL) for a plurality of the CSI-RS repetitions”
Jung’145 discloses CSI-RS resource sets configured have QCL information containing same value(s) [0437] Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the UE assumes a same quasi-colocation (QCL) for a plurality of the CSI-RS repetitions” as taught by Jung’145 into combined system of Kang and Ramireddy with the motivation to allow transmission of CSI-RS with a well known and accepted way for easy implementation
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Ramireddy and in further view of Pawar et al (WO 2018045028 A1)
Combined system of Kang and Ramireddy does not expressly disclose “wherein the sequence of CSI-RSs comprise CSI-RS sequences with time domain spreading”
Pawar discloses CSI-RS sequences are spread in time domain [0154]
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein the sequence of CSI-RSs comprise CSI-RS sequences with time domain spreading” as taught by Pawar into combined system of Kang and Ramireddy with the motivation to allow transmission of CSI-RS with a well known and accepted way for easy implementation
Claim 28 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kang in view of Ramireddy and Jung et al (USPN 20200052754).
Regarding claim 28, Kang discloses
a method for wireless communications by a network entity, comprising: (method of wireless communications by base station [0151-0163], FIG. 6
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a configuration identifying channel state information (CSI) reference signal (RS) (CSI-RS) repetitions over which a CSI report is to be generated (CSI-RS configuration to UE comprising repetition information for CSI reporting [0009, 0151-0163], Table 4, FIG. 6
transmitting CSI-RS repetitions according to the configuration (transmitting CSI-RS repetitions based on configuration [0009, 0171], FIG. 6
receiving a CSI report from the UE based on the transmitted CSI-RS repetitions (receive CSI form UE based on transmitted CSI-RS repetition [0178], FIG. 6
Kang does not expressly disclose wherein a second configuration specifies a type of CSI-RS repetition for the identified CSI-RS repetitions comprising one of inter-slot based CSI-RS or intra-slot based CSI-RS repetition
Ramireddy discloses wherein a second configuration specifies a type of CSI-RS repetition for the identified CSI-RS repetitions comprising one of inter-slot based CSI-RS or intra-slot based CSI-RS repetition (UE receives CSI-RS-BurstDuration comprising configuration for inter slot CSI-RS repetition [0255-0257], FIGs. 16(b), 17
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “wherein a second configuration specifies a type of CSI-RS repetition for the identified CSI-RS repetitions comprising one of inter-slot based CSI-RS or intra-slot based CSI-RS repetition” as taught by Ramireddy into Kang’s system with the motivation to allow UE to receive CSI-RS transmitted with repetition for increased resiliency.
Combined system of Kang and Ramireddy does not expressly disclose determining one or more parameters for communicating with the UE based on the received CSI report; transmitting the determined parameters to the UE
Jung discloses determining one or more parameters for communicating with the UE based on the received CSI report (bae station determines an adjusted MCS level base on CSI report [0044-0049, 0053], FIGs. 3A, 3B
transmitting the determined one or more parameters to the UE (base station transmits information on adjusted MCS level to terminal [0053], FIGs. 3A, 3B
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement “determining one or more parameters for communicating with the UE based on the received CSI report; transmitting the determined parameters to the UE” as taught by Jung into combined system of Kang and Ramireddy with the motivation to adjust MCS level based on channel condition for better communication (Jung, [0044-0049, 0053])
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-6, 11, 14-19, 21-23, 26, 27, 30 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kim et al (USPN 20190165847) FIG. 6
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 THAI NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7632. The examiner can normally be reached M-F campus 10:30-5pm, telework 6pm-8pm| Telework count days.
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, Ian N Moore can be reached at (571)272-3085. 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.
/THAI NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469