DETAILED ACTION
In response to communication filed on 12/9/2025.
Claims 7-11 are pending.
Claims 7-11 are rejected.
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 Amendments
This communication is in response to Applicant’s reply filed under 3 CFR 1.111 on 12/9/2025. Claims 7 and 9-11 were amended and claims 7-11 remain pending.
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 nonobviousness.
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 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US Pub. 2022/0216904)(Z1 hereafter) in view of Basu Mallick et al. (US Pub. 2020/0314711)(B1 hereafter).
Regarding claims 7,9,10 and 11, Z1 teaches a system [refer Fig. 1] comprising a terminal [refer Fig. 1; 116] and a base station [refer Fig. 1; 103], the terminal comprises:
a receiver [refer Fig. 3; 310][paragraph 0098] that receives one channel state information (CSI) resource configuration [paragraph 0172] corresponding to both of a configuration of an SS/PBCH Block (SSB) of a serving cell and a configuration of an SSB of a non-serving cell (resource settings can be for a serving cell and for non-serving cells)[paragraph 0178]; and
a processor [refer Fig. 3; 340][paragraph 0098] that controls transmission of a CSI report (the UE is configured to report to the network CSI reporting for serving cell and non-serving cell)[paragraph 0178], and
the base station [refer Fig. 2] comprises:
a processor [refer Fig. 2; 225][paragraph 0089] that controls reception of the CSI report (the UE sends the CSI report to the network (i.e. the base station))[paragraph 0166], an index corresponding to the CSI resource configuration is configured [paragraph 0146], and the index indicates a serving cell when a certain value is set as the index (i.e. an index can identify the serving cell), and indicates a non-serving cell when a value other than the certain value (i.e. the index for the serving cell) is set as the index (an index can be for an entry to a list of PCIs (i.e. physical cell identities))[paragraph 0246].
However, Z1 fails to disclose that the index is an integer and is distinct from a physical cell ID (PCI).
B1 discloses that a UE can be configured based on higher-layer signaling to report periodic CSI-RS configuration indexes and/or SS/PBCH block indexes for a source gNB whose measurements are larger than a measurement threshold for a target gNB [paragraph 0037], and in other embodiments, a cell index can be configured that can be an index of a configured serving cell, such as a PCell, PSCell or an Scell or a physical layer cell ID (i.e. an index can be distinct from a physical cell ID (PCI))[paragraph 0039].
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 teachings of Z1 for configuring a UE to report to a network CSI reporting for serving cell and non-serving cell [refer Z1; paragraph 0178] using different types of valid identifiers/higher layer signaling index values [refer Z1; paragraph 0145][Provisional 63/166699; page 30; “They could correspond to different non serving cells' PCIs, e.g., in/from a non-serving cell PCIs list higher layer configured/indicated to the UE by the network, or any other valid identifiers/higher layer signaling index values”] to incorporate the use of configuration indexes that can be seen as distinct from a PCI as taught by B1. One would be motivated to do so to provide the use of a known technique in the field of endeavor when such alternatives for indexes [refer Z1; paragraph 0145] and other cell-specific information/ID/index are allowed [paragraph 0161].
Regarding claims 8, Z1 teaches when group-based beam reporting is applied [paragraph 0137], the CSI report includes both of reference signal received power (RSRP) corresponding to the SSB [paragraph 0139] of the serving cell and RSRP corresponding to the SSB of the non-serving cell (report format includes the reporting of one or more resource indicators/beam metrics associated with/for both serving cell and non-serving cell)[paragraph 0149].
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed 12/9/2025, with respect to the rejection of claims 7-11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments to the claims altering the scope of the claims. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration of the amendments, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of the teachings of Basu Mallick et al. (US Pub. 2020/0314711), as noted in the above rejection.
Conclusion
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 RYAN C KAVLESKI whose telephone number is (571)270-3619. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 6:30am-3pm.
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, Charles C Jiang can be reached on 571-270-7191. 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.
Ryan Kavleski
/R.C.K./
Examiner, Art Unit 2412