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
The following is a final office action in response to applicant’s reply, filed on 01/29/2026, to the Non-Final Office Action mailed on 11/05/2025.
Claims 10 and 13-15 are amended. Claim 12 is canceled. Therefore, claims 10-11 and 13- 15 are pending and addressed below.
Applicant’s amendment has overcome rejection of title, previously set forth in the non-final office action.
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 10-11, 13, 14 and 15 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 10, 13, 14 and 15 recite limitation about not performing interference management with NZP-CSI-RS is not disclosed in the Spec. Closest Spec paragraph [95], relevant to the feature, discloses “NR may support only interference measurement based on a ZP-CSI-RS”, which is different than the recited claim recitation “wherein the processor does not perform interference measurement based on a non-zero power (NZP)-CSI-RS resource corresponding to the first resource group and a NZP-CSI-RS resource corresponding to the second resource group”. Therefore, claims lack written description requirement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
Claims 10-11, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAO; Chenxi et al US 20230061722 A1, hereinafter HAO, in view of WANG; Ting et al US 20200244320 A1, hereinafter WANG.
Regarding claims 10, 13, 14 and 15, HAO teaches, a terminal comprising:
a receiver that receives a channel state information (CSI) report configuration corresponding to a resource pair including one channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) resource for channel measurement of a first resource group and one CSI-RS resource for channel measurement of a second resource group (HAO [6]-[7] teaches receiving CSI reporting configuration that comprises plurality of CSI-RS for a CMR (Channel Measurement) pair (i.e., a first resource group and a second resource group,); and
a processor that performs interference measurement in a CSI-interference management (IM) resource associated with the resource pair (HAO Fig. 13; [106], [111]-[112] e.g., “there exists a mapping between one CSI-IM resource to a CMR pair” teaches a CSI-IM associated with the CMR (=resource) pair, and [48], [57] teaches performing interference measurement in CSI-IM Resource for multi-TRP).
HAO does not expressly teach, however, in the same field of endeavor, WANG teaches, wherein in a case of periodic or semi-persistent CSI, the processor does not perform interference measurement based on a non-zero power (NZP)-CSI-RS resource corresponding to the first resource group and an NZP-CSI-RS resource corresponding to the second resource group (Wang [36], [196] teaches in a multipoint/multi-TRP transmission, for CSI, interference measurement is performed using only ZP CSI-RS, thereby, suggesting not performing interference measurement using NZP-CSI-RS. The teaching is in line with the Spec para [125]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of HAO to include the features as taught by Wang above in order to provide a communications method to enable a terminal device to measure CSI and feed back the measured CSI to a network device in a scenario in which a plurality of transmission modes are supported (WANG [0006]).
With respect to claim 13, claim recites the identical features of claim 10 for a corresponding method. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
With respect to claim 14, claim recites the identical features of claim 10 for a corresponding inter-working transmitting side. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
With respect to claim 15, claim recites the identical features of claim 10 for a corresponding system comprising a transmitting base station and a receiving terminal. Therefore, it is subjected to the same rejection.
Regarding claim 11, HAO, in view of Wang, teaches the terminal, as outlined in the rejection of claim 10.
HAO further teaches, further comprising a transmitter that transmits a CSI report including a CSI-RS resource indicator (CRI) corresponding to the resource pair (HAO Figs. 9 and 13; [106], [9] “The method generally includes receiving a CSI report based on the association. The method generally includes receiving a codepoint of the indicator indicating a selected CMR, CMR-pair, port-group of a CMR, or two port-groups of a CMR” teaches CSI report from the UE includes a codepoint of the indicator (CRI) indicating a selected CMR (=CSI-RS)).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/29/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues in Remarks page 9 “It logically follows that when NR supports only ZP-CSI-RS for interference measurement in the above context, NR does not support NZP-CSI-RS for interference measurement. Thus, the specification sufficiently supports not performing interference measurement based on an NZP-CSI-RS resource corresponding to a first resource group and an NZP-CSI-RS resource corresponding to a second resource group.
Therefore, amended independent claims 10 and 13-15 sufficiently comply with the written description requirement under AIA 35 U.S.C. §112(a).”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. The limitation is a negative limitation which is not automatically supported unless adequate written description support by the original disclosure. See MPEP 2173.05(i) “Any claim containing a negative limitation which does not have basis in the original disclosure should be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement.”.
Applicant further argues in Remarks page 10 “The Examiner correctly recognizes that Hao fails to teach the limitation of claim 12. Office Action, p. 8. It logically follows that Hao also fails to disclose the above-referenced limitation of amended independent claim 10. The same is true regarding amended independent claims 13-15, which each recite a similar limitation as the above-referenced limitation of amended independent claim 10.
Given that Hao fails to anticipate each and every limitation of amended independent claims 10 and 13-15, Hao fails to support an anticipation rejection with respect to the amended independent claims. Hao also fails to support an anticipation rejection of claim 11 at least because of the dependency of this claim from amended independent claim 10. Accordingly, withdrawal of this rejection is respectfully requested.”.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. It is true that HAO does not disclose the limitation of previously presented claim 12, now incorporated into claim 10. However, Wang, as explained in the rejection, teaches the limitation as presented and correctly interpreted by the examiner based on the original disclosure and applicant’s argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LI, US 20210167829 A1 - CHANNEL STATE INFORMATION REPORTING METHOD AND APPARATUS, para [118], [139].
Liu, US 20230180034 A1 - System And Method For Coordinated Transmissions And Feedback, Para [146], Table 4.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-0232. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Thursday 9AM-5PM EST; Friday variable.
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, Khaled Kassim can be reached on 571-270-3770. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MAHBUBUL BAR CHOWDHURY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2475