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 .
Priority
1. The present application is a national stage entry of PCT/CN2020/108717 filed 08/12/2020.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
2. Claims 44 – 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 44 recites “in accordance with a determination that the updated timing difference falls below the threshold within a time period”. It is unclear to the Examiner whether the determination falls within the time period, or the updated timing difference. The claim is therefore indefinite, and rejected, along with its dependent claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragra4phs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
3. Claim(s) 38 – 42, 46, 49 – 50, and 55 - 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 3GPP (3GPP TSG-RAN WG4 Meeting #95-e R4-2009037)
Regarding claim 38, 3GPP discloses technical discussions surrounding the idea of CSI measurement. Specifically, 3GPP discloses a first device (UE; see section 4.3.1) comprising:
at least one processor (UE; see section 4.3.1; the Examiner understands UEs as comprising a processor); and
at least one memory including computer program codes (UE; see section 4.3.1; the Examiner understands UEs as comprising memory);
the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device at least to:
determine first timing of a channel state information reference signal from a target cell, the first device configured by a second device to measure the channel state information reference signal (adopt timing information from received SSB for CSI measurement of target cell; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response);
determine second timing used by the first device to measure the channel state information reference signal (two CSI-RS with two different timings; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response); and
determine a timing difference between the first timing and the second timing (two CSI-RS with two different timings; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response); and
transmit, to the second device and based on the timing difference, information concerning measurement of the channel state information reference signal (CSi reporting; see Issue 3.2.1-3; Vivo Comment; the Examiner notes that the CSI reporting would be done based on the measurements relevant to the timing difference).
Regarding claim 39, 3GPPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to determine the first timing by:
detecting a synchronization signal block of the target cell associated with the channel state information reference signal (CSI measurement with associated SSB for target cell; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response); and
determining the first timing based on the synchronization signal block (CSI measurement timing from associated SSB for target cell; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response)
Regarding claim 40, 3GPPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to determine the second timing by:
determining the second timing based on timing information of a serving cell provided by the second device (CSI measurement timing based on serving cell; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response)
Regarding claim 41, 3GPPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to determine the second timing by:
determining a cell from a set of cells comprising the target cell, the first device configured to measure channel state information reference signals from the set of cells, and determine the second timing based on timing information of the determined cell (CSI measurement of target cell, along with second timing based on target timing; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response; the Examiner notes that a set of cells can be comprised of a single cell).
Regarding claim 42, 3GPPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses the first device of Claim 38, wherein the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to transmit the information by:
in accordance with a determination that the timing difference is below a threshold, performing the measurement of the channel state information reference signal (determination of timing error is < CP/2; measuring CSI-RS; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response); and
transmitting a result of the measurement to the second device (CSi reporting; see Issue 3.2.1-3, Vivo Comment).
Regarding claim 46, 3GPPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the first device to:
receive, from the second device, a configuration indication to disable the measurement of the channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS restriction; see section 3.2.1-1 CATT comment).
Regarding claim 49, 3GPPP discloses a second device (UE; see section 4.3.1; the Examiner understands a UE in this context as requiring an eNB, the second device) comprising:
at least one processor (UE; see section 4.3.1; the Examiner understands a UE in this context as requiring an eNB comprising a processor, the second device); and
at least one memory including computer program codes (UE; see section 4.3.1; the Examiner understands a UE in this context as requiring an eNB with memory, the second device);
the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the second device at least to:
configure a first device to measure a channel state information reference signal from a target cell (CSI measurement of target cell configured via SSB; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response); and
receive, from the first device, information concerning measurement of the channel state information reference signal based on a timing difference between first timing of the channel state information reference signal and second timing used by the first device to measure the channel state information reference signal (CSIRS measurement involving two CSI-RS with timing difference between two different timings; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response; CSi reporting; see Issue 3.2.1-3; Vivo Comment; the Examiner notes that the CSI reporting would be done based on the measurements relevant to the timing difference).
Regarding claim 50, 3GPPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the second device to receive the information by:
receiving a result of the measurement from the first device (CSi reporting; see Issue 3.2.1-3; Vivo Comment; the Examiner notes that the CSI reporting would be done based on the measurements relevant to the timing difference).
Regarding claim 55, 3GPPP discloses a method comprising:
determining, at a first device, first timing of a channel state information reference signal from a target cell, the first device configured by a second device to measure the channel state information reference signal (adopt timing information from received SSB for CSI measurement of target cell; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response);
determining second timing used by the first device to measure the channel state information reference signal (two CSI-RS with two different timings; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response); and
determining a timing difference between the first timing and the second timing (two CSI-RS with two different timings; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response); and
transmitting, to the second device and based on the timing difference, information concerning measurement of the channel state information reference signal (CSi reporting; see Issue 3.2.1-3; Vivo Comment; the Examiner notes that the CSI reporting would be done based on the measurements relevant to the timing difference).
Regarding claim 56, 3GPPP discloses a method comprising:
configuring, at a second device, a first device to measure a channel state information reference signal from a target cell (CSI measurement of target cell configured via SSB; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response); and
receiving, from the first device, information concerning measurement of the channel state information reference signal based on a timing difference between first timing of the channel state information reference signal and second timing used by the first device to measure the channel state information reference signal (CSIRS measurement involving two CSI-RS with timing difference between two different timings; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response; CSi reporting; see Issue 3.2.1-3; Vivo Comment; the Examiner notes that the CSI reporting would be done based on the measurements relevant to the timing difference).
Regarding claim 57, 3GPPP discloses a computer readable medium comprising program instructions for causing an apparatus to perform at least the method of claim 55 (UE; see section 4.3.1)
Regarding claim 58, 3GPPP discloses A computer readable medium comprising program instructions for causing an apparatus to perform at least the method of claim 56 (UE; see section 4.3.1; the Examiner understands in context the UE requiring an eNB, the device)
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.
4. Claim(s) 43, 47 – 48, 51 – 52, and 54 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 3GPP (3GPP TSG-RAN WG4 Meeting #95-e R4-2009037) in view of Liu (US 20200358547 A1)
Regarding claim 43, 3GPPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to transmit the information by:
in accordance with a determination that the timing difference exceeds a threshold, transmitting to the second device an indication that the timing difference exceeds the threshold (determination of timing error is > CP/2; measuring CSI-RS; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response)
3GPP does not explicitly disclose the transmitting of the indication.
Liu discloses subject matter relating to CSIRS timing differences. Specifically, Liu discloses sending timing difference information (see paragraphs [0113 – 0114] and Fig. 7)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of 3GPP with Liu by specifying that the threshold of 3GPP, when exceeded, should be a cause for notification to the other device. One of ordinary skill I the art would have found it obvious to do so, as it is standard to report this sort of thing so that further decision making can take this information into account. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claim 47, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the first device to transmit the information by:
performing the measurement of the channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS measurement; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response); and
transmitting, to the second device, a result of the measurement and (CSi reporting; see Issue 3.2.1-3; Vivo Comment) a timing indication of whether the timing difference exceeds a threshold (determination of timing error is < CP/2; measuring CSI-RS; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response).
3GPP does not explicitly disclose transmitting the indication.
Liu discloses sending timing difference information (see paragraphs [0113 – 0114] and Fig. 7)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of 3GPP with Liu by specifying that an indication of whether the threshold has been exceeded to the other device. One of ordinary skill I the art would have found it obvious to do so, as it is standard to report this sort of thing so that further decision making can take this information into account. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claim 48, 3GPP and Liu teach the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses wherein the timing indication indicates the timing difference exceeding the threshold, and
wherein the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the first device to:
receive, from the second device, a configuration indication to disable the measurement of the channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS restriction; see section 3.2.1-1 CATT comment).
Regarding claim 51, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the second device to receive the information by:
receiving, from the first device, an indication that the timing difference exceeds a threshold (determination of timing error is < CP/2; measuring CSI-RS; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response).
3GPP does not explicitly disclose the indication.
Liu discloses sending timing difference information (see paragraphs [0113 – 0114] and Fig. 7)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of 3GPP with Liu by specifying that an indication of whether the threshold has been exceeded to the other device. One of ordinary skill I the art would have found it obvious to do so, as it is standard to report this sort of thing so that further decision making can take this information into account. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claim 52, 3GPP and Liu teach the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the second device to:
transmit to the first device a configuration indication to disable the measurement of the channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS restriction; see section 3.2.1-1 CATT comment; the Examiner understands in context the restriction coming from the eNB).
Regarding claim 53, 3GPP discloses the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, cause the second device to receive the information by:
receiving, from the first device, a result of the measurement (CSi reporting; see Issue 3.2.1-3; Vivo Comment) and a timing indication of whether the timing difference exceeds a threshold (determination of timing error is > CP/2; measuring CSI-RS; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response).
3GPP does not explicitly disclose the indication.
Liu discloses sending timing difference information (see paragraphs [0113 – 0114] and Fig. 7)
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to combine the disclosure of 3GPP with Liu by specifying that an indication of whether the threshold has been exceeded to the other device. One of ordinary skill I the art would have found it obvious to do so, as it is standard to report this sort of thing so that further decision making can take this information into account. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Regarding claim 54, 3GPP and Liu teach the subject matter of the parent claim(s), as noted above. 3GPP further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program codes are configured to, with the at least one processor, further cause the second device to:
in accordance with a determination that the timing indication indicates the timing difference exceeding the threshold (determination of timing error is > CP/2; measuring CSI-RS; see section 4.3.1 issue 4.2.2-1 MTK response), transmit to the first device a configuration indication to disable the measurement of the channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS restriction; see section 3.2.1-1 CATT comment).
3GPP does not explicitly disclose that the disabling of CSIRS is done in accordance with the determination.
However, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modify the teaching of 3GPP and Liu by transmitting the disabling indication in the case when the timing difference exceeds a threshold, as if the timing difference is too large, it wouldn’t make sense to measure CSIRS. Further, doing so would have been a use of a technique known in the art to improve a similar device, with predictable results, which has been determined by the Supreme Court to be obvious (see KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007)).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
1) Nagaraja – US 20180323927 A1 – CSI-RS
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to STEPHEN STEINER whose telephone number is (571)272-9825. The examiner can normally be reached M - R 08:00 - 16:00; F 08:00 - 12:00.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 5712723139. 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.
/S.S./ Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/RICKY Q NGO/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2464