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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/30/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The following is an office action in response to applicant’s amendment filed on 03/30/2026 for response of the final office action mailed on 02/03/2026. Independent Claim 1, 16, 29, and 30 and dependent Claims 2-3, 6, 8, 10-12, 14, 18, 21, 28 are amended. Claims 1-30 are pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 16, 29, and 30 have been fully considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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 non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6, 11-13, 16-20, 26- 27, 29 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUO in view of over GUO (US 20220014957 A1) in view of Comsa et al. (US 20240188015 A1), hereinafter Comsa and further in view of CHENG et al. (US 20240276266 A1), hereinafter CHENG.
Regarding Claim 1, GUO teaches an apparatus for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) (FIG. 4, communication device 400; FIG. 5, device ¶0112, device applied to a UE (e.g. Fig. 1, UE 120), comprising:
one or more processors (GUO, FIG. 4, 410; FIG. 5, 510);
memory coupled with the one or more processors (GUO, FIG. 4, 420; FIG. 5, 520); and
instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors (GUO, FIG. 4, ¶0153 computer program) to cause the apparatus to:
receive, from a network entity (GUO, FIG. 1, ¶0019, network device 110, of communication system 100), control information that schedules the UE to transmit a plurality of channel state information reports during overlapping windows of time (GUO, ¶0029 [f]or various measurement purposes, a system may configure (“schedule”) a UE with multiple CSI reports. . . [and] the UE might be configured to report multiple CSI reports in one slot, and those CSI reports may overlap in time domain, examiner interprets UE to receive configuration from system, i.e. network device, at ¶0026 “system” and “network” may be exchanged), the plurality of channel state information reports each based on measurements of respective sets of reference signals (GUO, ¶0041, a UE may be configured with a higher layer parameter reportQuantity set to ‘cri-SINR’ or ‘ssb-index-SINR’ to indicate the UE to measure a set of CSI-RS resources or SS/PBCH blocks and then report one or more CRIs/SSBRIs and corresponding L1-SINR measurements); and
transmit, to the network entity and during the overlapping windows of time, a prioritized channel state information report from the plurality of channel state information reports in accordance with a priority rule (GUO, ¶0029 a priority rule is specified for the CSI reports; ¶0039 [t]he priority rule is required when two different CSI reports collide with each other in uplink resource for the UE (to the “network entity”), to properly multiplex or drop the CSI reports; see also ¶0035 when the PUCCH or PUSCH scheduled to carry the two CSI reports overlap in at least one OFDM symbol in time domain, the two CSI reports collide with each other; [and] when two CSI reports collide with each other, the two CSI reports are multiplexed or dropped according to the priority values; FIG. 2, ¶0043-0044, the UE determines priority of at least two CSI reports),
wherein the priority rule defines a priority of each of the plurality of channel state information reports (GUO, ¶0029, a priority rule is specified for the CSI reports; ¶0044, at 201 the UE determines the priority levels (“priority”) of the at least two CSI reports; see also ¶0039; ¶0040-¶0042 above), . . .
GUO does not explicitly teach each priority of the plurality of channel state information reports is based at least in part on whether a corresponding one of the plurality of channel state information reports includes measurements of at least one set of reference signals from one or more non- serving cells.
However, in the analogous art, Comsa explicitly discloses each priority of the plurality of channel state information reports is based at least in part on whether a corresponding one of the plurality of channel state information reports includes measurements of at least one set of reference signals from one or more non-serving cells, (Comsa, FIG. 4, ¶0314-0316, a method 400 implemented in a WTRU (for CSI reporting and prioritization). . . at 420 “determining a priority value based on a serving parameter (e.g. feature) of the transmission reception point (TRP) that may indicate whether the TRP is a serving cell or a non-serving cell the priority value of the first report on state information of the first channel may be determined based on an offset that is a first value, and on condition that the TRP is a non-serving cell) . . .
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine GUO’s method and device for determining priority level of a CSI report with Comsa’s methods, apparatus and systems for a WTRU/UE. The motivation would be to provide a carrier aggregation and CSI reporting priority framework to address overlapping/collisions [Comsa, Section 4.1, ¶0104; ¶0316].
GUO and Comsa do not explicitly teach the priority rule assigns a higher priority to laver 1/layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) channel state information reports than to a plurality of second channel state information reports of the plurality of channel state information reports.
However, in the analogous art, CHENG explicitly discloses the priority rule assigns a higher priority to laver 1/layer 2 triggered mobility (LTM) channel state information reports than to a plurality of second channel state information reports of the plurality of channel state information reports (CHENG, ¶0108, an L1 measurement report for LTM sent through semi-persistent CSI report carried on PUSCH, may have a higher priority than a PUSCH including only UL-SCH (“other CSI reports”); see also ¶0105 with establishes the priority order / “priority rule”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine GUO’s method and device for determining priority level of a CSI report and Comsa’s methods, apparatus and systems for a WTRU/UE with CHENG’s device and method for L1 measurement reporting for L1/L2 based mobility. The motivation would be to reduce the latency, overhead, and interruption time [CHENG, ¶0005].
Regarding Claim 2, GUO, Comsa and CHENG teach claim 1.
GUO further teaches to:determine the respective priorities for each of the plurality of channel state information reports based at least in part on the priority rule (GUO, ¶0029, a priority rule is specified for the CSI reports; ¶0044, at 201 the UE determines the priority levels (“priority”) of the at least two CSI reports), wherein the prioritized channel state information report has a highest respective priority of the respective priorities (GUO, ¶0029, [a] periodic CSI report has a higher priority (here, a “highest respective priority”) than a semi-persistent CSI report, and the semi-persistent CSI report has a higher priority than an aperiodic CSI report. A CSI report for reporting the L1-RSRP has a lower priority than a CSI report for other reporting quantities).
Regarding Claim 3, GUO, Comsa and CHENG teach claim 1.
GUO further teaches to: weight an input to the priority rule (¶0029, formula/equation, “priority rule”) based on whether the respective set of reference signals for the corresponding one of the plurality of channel state information reports is associated with a serving cell for the UE, the one or more non-serving cells for the UE, or both the serving cell for the UE and the one or more non-serving serving cells for the UE (GUO, ¶0029, the CSI report is associated with a priority value PriiCSI(y, k, c, s) [of the priority rule]. . where ¶0031 k=0 for a CSI report which carries the L1-RSRP, interpreted to correspond to indicator of “non-serving cell” association, and k=1 for a CSI report which does not carry the L1-RSRP, interpreted to correspond to association with the “serving cell”; see also ¶0029 a CSI report for reporting the L1-RSRP, (a report “associated with one or more candidate cells”, i.e. non-serving cells) has a lower priority than a CSI report for other reporting quantities).
Regarding Claim 4, GUO, Comsa and CHENG teach claim 3.
GUO further teaches the input is assigned a greater weight when the respective set of reference signals is associated with the serving cell for the UE than when the respective set of reference signals is associated with only the one or more non-serving cells for the UE (GUO, ¶0029, the CSI report is associated with a priority value PriiCSI(y, k, c, s). . . where at ¶0031 k=1 for a CSI report which does not carry the L1-RSRP, interpreted to correspond to association with the “serving cell”; k=1 results in the input being assigned a “greater weight”).
Regarding Claim 5, GUO, Comsa and CHENG teach claim 1.
GUO further teaches the priority rule includes, as an input [parameter], a cell identifier associated with a respective one of the plurality of channel state information reports (GUO, ¶0029, the CSI report is associated with a priority value PriiCSI(y, k, c, s). . . where ¶0033, “s” [or parameter s] denotes a reportConfigID, i.e. “one of the plurality of CSI reports”),wherein the cell identifier is of a serving cell when the respective sets of reference signals are associated with the serving cell for the UE or associated with both the serving cell for the UE and the one or more non-serving cells for the UE (GUO, ¶0040-0042, see also GUO at, for example, ¶0032, ¶0052, ¶0056; ¶0065, ¶0069; ¶0078, ¶0082, . . . the CSI reports are based at least in part on the association of the serving cell index, “c” [or parameter c]; interpreted as “a serving cell identifier”).
Regarding Claim 6, GUO, Comsa and CHENG teach claim 1.
GUO further teaches the priority rule includes, as an input, a cell identifier associated with a respective one of the plurality of channel state information reports (GUO, ¶0029, ¶0029, a priority rule is specified for the CSI reports; the CSI report is associated with a priority value PriiCSI(y, k, c, s). . . where ¶0033, “s” [parameter] denotes a reportConfigID, i.e. “a cell identifier with one of the plurality of CSI reports”, “c” [parameter] denotes a serving cell index, etc.),
GUO does not explicitly teach wherein the cell identifier is of a one of the one or more non-serving cells when the respective sets of reference signals are associated with only the one or more non-serving cells for the UE.
However, in the analogous art, Comsa explicitly discloses wherein the cell identifier is of one of the one or more non-serving cells when the respective sets of reference signals are associated with only the one or more non-serving cells for the UE (Comsa ¶0002, ¶0066-0067; ¶0104; mTRP/inter-cell scenario where the TRPs have different Physical Cell Identities (PCIs); ¶0104, the choice of index value, for example between 0 or 1 may be based on a direct association with a PCID. . . . a flag indicating whether a TCI state/QCL information is associated with a serving or non-serving cell).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine GUO’s method and device for determining priority level of a CSI report and CHENG’s device and method for L1 measurement reporting for L1/L2 based mobility with Comsa’s methods, apparatus and systems for a WTRU/UE. The motivation would be to provide a carrier aggregation and CSI reporting priority framework to address overlapping/collisions [Comsa, Section 4.1, ¶0104; ¶0316].
Regarding Claim 11, GUO, Comsa and CHENG teach claim 1.
GUO further teaches to: determine the prioritized channel state information report based at least in part on the priority rule (GUO, ¶0029, [a] priority rule is specified for the CSI reports; ¶0044, at 201 the UE may determine the priority levels of the at least two CSI reports),
wherein the priority rule assigns a first weight to an input when the respective set of reference signals is associated with an aperiodic report type, a second weight to the input when the respective set of reference signals is associated with an event-triggered report type, a third weight to the input when the respective set of reference signals is associated with a semi-persistent report type or a fourth weight to the input when the respective set of reference signals is associated with a periodic report type (GUO, ¶0030, y=0 for an aperiodic CSI report to be carried on a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), y=1 for a semi-persistent CSI report to be carried on the PUSCH, y=2 for a semi-persistent CSI report to be carried on a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH), and y=3 for a periodic CSI report to be carried on the PUCCH),
wherein the first weight is greater than the second weight, which is greater than the third weight, which is greater than the fourth weight (GUO, ¶0029 a periodic CSI report has a higher priority than a semi-persistent CSI report, and the semi-persistent CSI report has a higher priority than an aperiodic CSI report [and] . . . a CSI report for reporting the L1 -RSRP has a lower priority than a CSI report for other reporting quantities).
Regarding Claim 12, GUO, Comsa and CHENG teach claim 1.
GUO further teaches to determine a first channel state information report corresponding to a first set of reference signals and . . . a second channel state information report corresponding to a second set of reference signals (GUO, for example ¶0097-0099, teaches a plurality of ranked CSI reports corresponding to a set of reference signals, ¶L1-RSRP; L1-SINR, etc.).
GUO does not explicitly teach to: determine a first channel state information report corresponding to a first set of reference signals, wherein the first set of reference signals is associated with a serving cell for the UE; and determine a second channel state information report corresponding to a second set of reference signals, wherein the second set of reference signals is associated with a non-serving cell for the UE, and wherein transmitting the prioritized channel state information report comprises transmitting the first channel state information report in accordance with the priority rule prioritizing the serving cell for the UE over the non-serving cell for the UE.
However, in the analogous art Comsa explicitly discloses the first set of reference signals is associated with a serving cell for the UE (Comsa, ¶0104, the WTRU receives RSs and control and data information from two cells with different PCIs FIG. TBD, ¶TBD, e.g. CSI report associated with periodic reporting – interpreted to correspond to CSI-RS signals associated with the serving cell for the UE); and the second set of reference signals is associated with a non-serving cell for the UE (Comsa, ¶0104, [t]he second TRP may be associated with a non-serving cell (“candidate cell”) and may be indicated via a cell index; . . . this index value 4) a set of RS indices corresponding to TCI state/QCL-Info of serving or non-serving cell, and 5) a set of RS indices corresponding to TCI state/QCL-Info of serving or non-serving cell), wherein transmitting the prioritized channel state information report comprises transmitting the first channel state information report in accordance with the priority rule prioritizing the serving cell for the UE over the non-serving cell for the UE (Comsa, ¶0105, the CSI report for the serving cell is more important than reporting the measurement corresponding to the TRP associated with the non-serving cell, i.e. “candidate cell” (¶0119); see also ¶0079).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine GUO’s method and device for determining priority level of a CSI report and CHENG’s device and method for L1 measurement reporting for L1/L2 based mobility with Comsa’s methods, apparatus and systems for a WTRU/UE. The motivation would be to provide a carrier aggregation and CSI reporting priority framework to address overlapping [Comsa, Section 4.1, ¶0104].
Regarding Claim 13, GUO, Comsa and CHENG teach claim 1.
GUO further teaches parameters of the priority rule comprise at least one of a type of measurement report, an indication of whether a reference signal received power value or a signal to noise ratio value is included in a corresponding one of the plurality of channel state information reports, a serving cell index, a maximum number of serving cells, a report identifier for a channel state information report, a maximum number of channel state information report indications, an input distinguishing channel state information reports carrying serving cell measurement and non-serving cell measurement, a term having a first value indicating that the plurality of channel state information reports is not associated with any reference signal in a serving cell, wherein the term has a second value indicating that the plurality of channel state information reports is associated with a reference signal in the serving cell, or a combination thereof (GUO ¶0028, priority rule defined for the CSI report with L1-RSRP . . ., ¶0031, k=0 for a CSI report which carries the L1-RSRP, and k=1 for a CSI report which does not carry the L1-RSRP, the k value is the “indication”; ¶0032 “c” denotes a serving cell index, Ncells denotes a value of a higher layer parameter maxNrofServingCells, ¶0033, s denotes a reportConfigID, , Ms denotes a value of the higher layer parameter maxNrofCSI-ReportConfigurations , see also ¶0034-0035; examiner interprets that only one of the claimed features to be mapped because of the presence of “at least one of”).
Regarding Claims 16-21, 26 and 27, the claims disclose similar features of Claims 1-6, 11, and 13 respectively and are rejected based on the same rationales of Claims 1-6, 11, and 13, in apparatus form (GUO, an apparatus for wireless communications at a network entity,(GUO, FIG. 1, ¶0019, network device 110, of communication system 100) comprising: a processor (GUO,FIG. 4, 410; FIG. 5, 510); memory coupled with the processor (GUO,FIG. 4, 420; FIG. 5, 520); and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the processor (GUO, FIG. 4, ¶0153 computer program)).
Regarding Claim 29, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 1 and is rejected based on the same rationales of Claim 1, in method form (GUO, FIG. 2, ¶0004-0005, method for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE)).
Regarding Claim 30, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 16 and is rejected based on the same rationales of Claim 16, in method form (GUO, ¶0019, ¶0158; ¶0169, method for wireless communications at a network entity).
Claims 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUO, Comsa and CHENG and further in view of DU (US 20150024756 A1).
Regarding Claim 7, GUO, Comsa and CHENG teach claim 6.
GOU and Comsa do not explicitly teach the one of the one or more non-serving cells has either a smallest cell identifier of the one or more non-serving cells or a largest cell identifier of the one or more non-serving cells.
However, in the analogous art, DU explicitly discloses the one of the one or more non-serving cells has either a smallest cell identifier of the one or more non-serving cells or a largest cell identifier of the one or more non-serving cells (DU, FIG. 7A, ¶0139, each rank ("1", "2", . . . ) is given in order from the highest receiving signal level to the lowest [and] [a] handover destination candidate cell ranked at the highest priority is a cell whose cell ID is "5" (interpreted to correspond to the “largest cell identifier of the one or more non-serving cells”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine GUO’s method and device for determining priority level of a CSI report, Comsa’s methods, apparatus and systems for a WTRU/UE, and CHENG’s device and method for L1 measurement reporting for L1/L2 based mobility with DU’s a radio mobile communication system in which a hierarchical cell structure is adopted. The motivation would be to improve total capacity of a mobile communication system and throughput [DU, ¶0003;0058].
Regarding Claim 22, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 7, and is rejected based on the same rationales of Claim 7.
Claims 8-9 and 23-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUO, Comsa and CHENG and further in view of LI et al. (US 20240187201 A1), hereinafter LI.
Regarding Claim 8, GUO, Comsa and CHENG teach claim 1.
GUO further teaches to: determine the prioritized channel state information report based at least in part on the priority rule (GUO, ¶0029, a priority rule is specified for the CSI reports; ¶0044, at 201 the UE determines the priority levels (“priority”) of the at least two CSI reports),
GUO does not explicitly teach the priority rule assigns a greater weight to an input when the respective set of reference signals is associated with an active serving cell for the UE than when the respective set of reference signals is associated with a deactivated serving cell for the UE.
However, in the analogous art, LI explicitly discloses the priority rule assigns a greater weight to an input when the respective set of reference signals is associated with an active serving cell for the UE than when the respective set of reference signals is associated with a deactivated serving cell for the UE (LI, FIG. 7, ¶0050, determining a carrier specific scaling factor (CSSF) for deactivated serving cells (as compared with active serving cells ¶0021) also FIG. 4, ¶0039, the carrier specific scaling factor (CSSF) is a scaling factor applied to the measurement period of the corresponding MO (monitoring occasion)). (see also Comsa, ¶0295 as TCI states may be activated by MAC, the gNB may decide which mTRP will operate by TCI state activation.)
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine GUO’s method and device for determining priority level of a CSI report, Comsa’s methods, apparatus and systems for a WTRU/UE, and CHENG’s device and method for L1 measurement reporting for L1/L2 based mobility with LI’s carrier specific scaling factor for a deactivated primary/serving cell. The motivation would be that power saving may be increased because the UE may spend less time measuring deactivated cells. [LI, 0048].
Regarding Claim 9, GUO, Comsa, CHENG and LI teach claim 8.
GUO, Comsa and CHENG do not explicitly teach the priority rule assigns a greater weight to the input when the respective set of reference signals is associated with the deactivated serving cell for the UE than when the respective set of reference signals is associated with only a non-serving cell for the UE.
However, in the analogous art, LI explicitly discloses the priority rule assigns a greater weight to the input when the respective set of reference signals is associated with the deactivated serving cell for the UE than when the respective set of reference signals is associated with only a non-serving cell for the UE (LI, carrier specific scaling factor (¶0050, Table 700 shows prioritization of deactivated PSCells (“deactivated serving cell”) over SCells (“non-serving cells”; see also FIG. 8, ¶0058-0059, a new parameter RatioPSCC, 810 may be added to the MeasConfig 1E, 800 to signal the prioritization information).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine GUO’s method and device for determining priority level of a CSI report, Comsa’s methods, apparatus and systems for a WTRU/UE, and CHENG’s device and method for L1 measurement reporting for L1/L2 based mobility with LI’s carrier specific scaling factor for a deactivated primary/serving cell. The motivation would be that power saving may be increased because the UE may spend less time measuring deactivated cells. [LI, 0048].
Regarding Claim 23-24, the claim discloses similar features of Claims 8-9 and are rejected based on the same rationale of Claims 8-9.
Claims 10 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUO in view of Comsa and CHENG and further in view of LIN et al. (US 20240284279 A1), hereinafter LIN.
Regarding Claim 10, GUO, Comsa and CHENG teach claim 1.
GUO further teaches to: determine the prioritized channel state information report based at least in part on the priority rule (GUO, ¶0029, a priority rule is specified for the CSI reports; ¶0044, at 201 the UE determines the priority levels (“priority”) of the at least two CSI reports);
the priority rule assigns a greater weight to an input when the respective set of reference signals is associated with an intra-frequency measurement type (¶0074; a priority value of the first CSI report (L1-SINR/L1-RSRP, “intra-frequency measurement types”) is equal to that of the second CSI report, and greater than that of the third CSI report; the second CSI report carries the L1-RSRP (“intra-frequency measurement type”), and the third CSI report carries CSI reporting quantities other than the L1-SINR and L1-RSRP).
GUO, Comsa and CHENG do not explicitly teach wherein the priority rule assigns a greater weight to an input when the respective set of reference signals is associated with an intra-frequency measurement type than when the respective set of reference signals is associated with an inter-frequency measurement type.
However, in the analogous art LIN explicitly discloses the priority rule assigns a greater weight to an input when the respective set of reference signals is associated with an intra-frequency measurement type than when the respective set of reference signals is associated with an inter-frequency measurement type (LIN, ¶0158 the order of the intra-frequency measurement result and inter-frequency measurement result in a single report may be such that the intra-frequency measurement result is prioritized before the inter-frequency measurement result).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine GUO’s method and device for determining priority level of a CSI report, Comsa’s methods, apparatus and systems for a WTRU/UE, and CHENG’s device and method for L1 measurement reporting for L1/L2 based mobility with LIN’s method for managing L1/L2 triggered mobility (LTM) performed by a UE is provided. The motivation would be to reduce the latency, overhead, and interruption time. [LIN, ¶0051].
Regarding Claim 25, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 10 and is rejected based on the same rationale of Claim 10.
Claims 14-15 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over GUO, Comsa and CHENG and further in view of Zhu et al. (US 20240223340 A1), hereinafter Zhu.
Regarding Claim 14, GUO, Comsa and CHENG teach claim 1.
GUO, Comsa and CHENG do not explicitly teach to: transmit, to the network entity, an indication indicating whether the prioritized channel state information report is triggered based at least in part on a mobility event at the UE.
However, in the analogous art, Zhu explicitly discloses to: transmit, to the network entity, an indication indicating whether the prioritized channel state information report is triggered based at least in part on a mobility event at the UE (Zhu, ¶0105, ¶0109-0111, UE transmits an indication in the CSI-RS indicating a mobility trigger; see also FIG. 7, ¶0110, ueInitiatedReporting to the BS [network entity] ‘enabled’).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine GUO’s method and device for determining priority level of a CSI report, Comsa’s methods, apparatus and systems for a WTRU/UE, and CHENG’s device and method for L1 measurement reporting for L1/L2 based mobility with Zhu’s methods and apparatuses for resource and reporting settings to enable UE initiated reporting. The motivation would be to enable fast/reliable DL/UL or SL transmission/reception [Zhu, ¶0101].
Regarding Claim 15, GUO, Comsa, CHENG and Zhu teach claim 14.
GUO, Comsa and CHENG do not explicitly teach the indication is transmitted using at least one of an explicit bit in the prioritized channel state information report, a field in the prioritized channel state information report, one or more scrambling sequences of a demodulation reference signal, or a combination thereof.
However, in the analogous art, Zhu explicitly discloses the indication is transmitted using at least one of an explicit bit in the prioritized channel state information report, a field in the prioritized channel state information report, one or more scrambling sequences of a demodulation reference signal, or a combination thereof (Zhu, FIG. 11, ¶0163, when/if the higher layer parameter (¶0160, field/bit) ueInitiatedReporting is set to enabled, the UE 116 could measure the CSI-RS(s) for the UE-initiated/triggered reporting determined according to one or more examples described herein and use/apply the corresponding measurement result(s) to autonomously initiate/trigger the event(s)-based or non-event(s)-based reporting).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skills in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to combine GUO’s method and device for determining priority level of a CSI report, Comsa’s methods, apparatus and systems for a WTRU/UE, and CHENG’s device and method for L1 measurement reporting for L1/L2 based mobility with Zhu’s methods and apparatuses for resource and reporting settings to enable UE initiated reporting. The motivation would be to enable fast/reliable DL/UL or SL transmission/reception [Zhu, ¶0101].
Regarding Claim 28, the claim discloses similar features of Claim 14 and is rejected based on the same rationale of Claim 14.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JIN et al. (US 20240284284 A1): ¶0011, a method and a device, in which, when a terminal is receiving a service via a specific beam from a current serving cell, a beam belonging to another cell may be measured and reported, and if a beam of a neighboring cell becomes better, a cell change to the neighboring cell may be indicated via layer 1/layer 2(L1/L2) signaling and performed; Claim 3, identifying that the LTM has a higher priority than the L3 handover.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRACY L WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)270-7694. The examiner can normally be reached Mon - Fri 8:30-5:30.
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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at 571-270-0422. 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.
/TRACY L WILLIAMS/Examiner, Art Unit 2465 /CHRISTOPHER T WYLLIE/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights