Office Action Predictor
Application No. 18/258,617

CONFIGURING A CHANNEL STATE INFORMATION REPORT

Final Rejection §103§112
Filed
Jun 21, 2023
Examiner
TRAN, PHUC H
Art Unit
2471
Tech Center
2400 — Computer Networks
Assignee
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. LTD.
OA Round
2 (Final)
92%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
3y 0m
To Grant
66%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

92%
Career Allow Rate
938 granted / 1024 resolved
Without
With
+-25.6%
Interview Lift
avg trend
3y 0m
Avg Prosecution
44 pending
1068
Total Applications
career history

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
4.5%
-35.5% vs TC avg
§103
37.7%
-2.3% vs TC avg
§102
24.8%
-15.2% vs TC avg
§112
18.7%
-21.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data

Office Action

§103 §112
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 Amendment Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) shave been 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 § 112 3. 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. 4. Claims 1-10, 12-20 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. - Regarding to claim 1, the term “a channel quality indicator indicating a configuration mode of a plurality of configuration modes”, 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. (the Paragraph 90 fails to discloses the CQI indicate the configuration mode of a plurality of configuration modes). 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) 1-3, 5, 8-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rahman et al. (Patent No. 10200103) in view of Park et al. (Pub. No. 20200412431). * Regarding to claims with optional language such as “OR”, Examiner only selects one limitation to exam. - With respect to claims 1, 8, 14, 15-17 , Rahman teaches a method of a user equipment(UE), the method comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to: receive a channel state information (CSI) reporting setting, receive a CSI that corresponds to at least one CSI reference signal CSI-RS resource (e.g. Fig. 8 shows the CSI reporting configuration); identify at least one combination of configurations (e.g. linear combination in col. 2 line 4); generate a set of channel state information CSI feedback parameters based on the at least one combination of configurations (e.g. col. 2, lines 4-5 discloses “an advanced CSI reporting based on linear combination codebook for MIMO wireless communication systems”); and transmit a set of at least one CSI report of a plurality of CSI reports to a network, wherein each CSI report of the at least one CSI report: corresponds to at least one type of a codebook configured via a codebook configuration (e.g. col. 15-16 discloses “The UE uses either a configured or a fixed multi-resolution codebook to report the CSI.”); comprises the set of CSI feedback parameters (e.g. feedback parameters consider as codebook parameter in col 15-16); and comprises at least one CSI part (e.g. the CSI report consider as CSI part). Rahman fails to teach comprises a channel quality indicator (CQI) indicating a configuration mode of a plurality of configuration modes. Park teaches CSI report include CQI (see abstract; par. 7). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date to implement the step of CSI report include CQI for indication configuration information into Rahman’s invention for an advantage in that it can increase the amount of network data by sending or receiving data using a licensed spectrum and an unlicensed spectrum through an LTE-WLAN aggregation. - With respect to claims 2, 18, Rahman teaches the CSI reporting setting is associated with indication comprises: a high-layer parameter in the CSI reporting setting (see col. 15, lines 38-41) or a codebook configuration that indicates enabling high speed, enabling a Doppler CSI framework, or a combination thereof; a report quantity including a Doppler indication, a mobility indication, a high-speed indication (e.g. the high mobility of UE, col. 16, lines 5-10), or a combination thereof; a codebook type corresponding to high-speed CSI feedback reporting (e.g. high mobility of UE col. 16, lines 8-10 ); an indicator in a CSI report part 1 (e.g. CSI typ1 discloses in col. 16, lines 33-40); or some a combination thereof. - With respect to claims 3, 9, 19, Rahman teaches one CSI resource setting with a resource type codepoint corresponding to two resource type values (e.g. col. 13 discloses “three types of CSI reporting mechanism corresponding to three types of CSI-RS measurement behavior are supported in LTE specification) “CLASS A” CSI reporting which corresponds to non-precoded CSI-RS, 2) “CLASS B” reporting with K=1 CSI-RS resource which corresponds to UE-specific beamformed CSI-RS, 3) “CLASS B” reporting with K>1 CSI-RS resources which corresponds to cell-specific beamformed CSI-RS.”) selected from a group comprising: periodic, aperiodic, and semi-persistent (e.g. col. 14 disclose “ To facilitate such a procedure, a first BF CSI-RS transmitted with periodicity T1 (ms) and a second NP CSI-RS transmitted with periodicity T2 (ms), where T1≤T2. This approach is termed hybrid CSI-RS. The implementation of hybrid CSI-RS is largely dependent on the definition of CSI process and NZP CSI-RS resource”). - With respect to claim 5, Rahman teaches wherein: the set of CSI feedback parameters of a primary codebook corresponding to the primary configuration mode comprises: an indicator of a set of beam indices (e.g. embodiment 9 in col. 23-24); indicator of amplitude values of the selected coefficients (see col. 2, lines 10-20). - With respect to claim 10, Rahman teaches wherein a selected configuration mode of the plurality of configuration modes is inferred via a configuration mode indicator in a first part of a CSI report of the at least one CSI report, and the channel state information CSI report comprises two parts (e.g. col. 16, lines 25-45 of sub-embodiments 0). - With respect to claim 12, Rahman teaches wherein one codebook corresponding to a precoding matrix comprises parameters from multiple CSI reports of the at least one CSI report, and the one codebook comprises at least two configuration modes (e.g. PMI in abstract). - With respect to claim 13, Rahman teaches wherein the at least one CSI report comprises information indicating: a user equipment UE speed (e.g. high mobility of user discloses in col. 15-16 bridge par.). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4, 6-7, 20 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. See PTO-892. . Examiner's Note: Examiner has cited particular paragraphs or columns and line numbers in the references applied to the claims above for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings of the art and are applied to specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested from the applicant in preparing responses, to fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the Examiner. 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 PHUC H TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3172. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5 Flex. 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, Sujoy K. Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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. /PHUC H TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 21, 2023
Application Filed
Jul 12, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103, §112
Aug 20, 2025
Interview Requested
Sep 15, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Sep 24, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 15, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 24, 2026
Final Rejection — §103, §112
Mar 27, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology. Study what changed to get past this examiner.

Patent 12598553
INTELLIGENT POWER SAVING IN A WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12598631
BEAM MANAGEMENT IN A WIRELESS NETWORK
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12593276
SYSTEMS AND METHOD FOR INDICATING SERVICE PERIOD INFORMATION FOR RESTRICTED TARGET WAKE TIME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12588021
CAPABILITY INFORMATION SIGNALING FOR DYNAMIC INDICATION OF SHARED CHANNEL OCCASION SKIPPING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12580689
WIRELESS COMMUNICATION METHOD, TERMINAL DEVICE AND NETWORK DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026

AI Strategy Recommendation

Click below to generate an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
92%
Grant Probability
66%
With Interview (-25.6%)
3y 0m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 1024 resolved cases by this examiner