DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response filed 9/10/2026 is acknowledged.
No claims have been amended, cancelled, or added.
Claims 1-20 remain pending.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu et al. (US20230062132A1), hereafter Wu, in view of Frank et al. (US20130202015A1), hereafter Frank, and Na (US20240405824A1).
Regarding claims 1, 8, and 15,
Wu discloses a method (Fig. 8-11) and non-transitory computer readable medium comprising program code (Fig. 6, memory 604 holding instructions 606; paragraph 109) executed by a processor (Fig. 6, processor 602) for operating a base station (BS) (Fig. 1, 105a-f; Fig. 2, 205; Fig. 6) comprising a transceiver (Fig. 6, antennas 616) configured to receive, from a user equipment (UE) (Fig. 1, UEs 115), a channel state information (CSI) report comprising a precoding matrix indicator (PMI), a channel quality information (CQI), and a rank indicator (RI) (paragraph 34; CSI includes various feedback such as RI, CQI, and PMI).
Wu further shows a processor operably coupled to the transceiver, the processor configured to identify a CSI configuration of the UE (Fig. 3, configuration 330; paragraph 73), perform a metric smoothing operation on the PMI resulting in a smoothed PMI (Fig. 3-4; Fig. 8, steps 840; Fig. 9, steps 926/936; paragraphs 31-38, 69, 77-83, 89-91; multi-TRP CSI reporting with quantized/scaled PMI determined based on CSI-RS configuration and number of TRPs), wherein the metric smoothing operation comprises a scaling function based on the RI (paragraph 81; “dependent on the rank”) and a discrete Fourier transform (DFT) vector length (Fig. 9, steps 920/930; paragraph 64-69, 75, 79; transform to DFT domain to reduce PMI overhead);
Wu further discloses smoothing operation comprises at least one of reordering and unwrapping functions (Wu: paragraph 69; codebook representing oversampled DFT beams, selection of L beams out of the beams by indicating a certain codeword from the codebook for quantizing the PMI coefficients; compares favorably with paragraphs 76-81 of the instant application in describing the claimed “reordering function” and “unwrapping functions” w.r.t. DFT codeword processing).
Wu discloses 5G NR capability of scaling to provide various coverage to users with wide ranges of mobility (paragraph 30) but does not expressly disclose the metric smoothing operation/scaling is performed by the base station.
Frank discloses analogous art (Title: Gain Normalization Correction of PMI and CQI feedback for Base Station with Antenna Array) where the metric smoothing (i.e. normalization) of PMI can be performed by either the UE or Base Station (Fig. 3, steps 310-350; paragraph 3, 12-22, 30, 45-52; device is an eNB or UE; PMI normalization based on rank/RI performed by eNB).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Wu by performing the metric smoothing operation/scaling by the base station, as shown by Frank, thereby optimizing PMI based on updated composite channel estimates for per-PMI gain normalization corrections for a known matrix.
The combination of Wu and Frank does not expressly disclose determining a mobility range classification of the UE based on CSI configuration and metrics in the CSI report including PMI.
Na discloses analogous art (Title; Abstract; Background; CSI report/feedback) including determining a mobility range classification of the UE based on CSI configuration and metrics in the CSI report including PMI (paragraphs 48-53, 62-66, 82-87, 91-96, 100-104, 118-123; adaptive channel estimation based on CSI report reflecting the mobility/speed of UE).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Wu by determining a mobility range classification of the UE based on CSI configuration and metrics in the CSI report including PMI, as shown by Na, thereby ensuring accurate channel estimation based on CSI report for UE of various mobility states.
Regarding claims 2, 9, and 16,
The combination of Wu, Frank, and Na discloses smoothing operation comprises a phase reordering function (Wu: paragraph 35, 56-59, 62-68; “reordering function” = to weighting signal phases in the context of selection of L beams out of the beams by indicating a certain codeword from the codebook for quantizing the PMI coefficients shown above; see also Frank: paragraphs 27-29, 37-41, 54-56; PMI correction/calibrated by on relative phases). See motivations above.
Claims 3-5, 10-12, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, Frank, and Na as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of Soldati et al. (US20240314638A1), hereafter Soldati.
Regarding claims 3, 10, and 17,
The combination of Wu and Na do not expressly disclose deriving sets of mobility features based on smoothed PMI, RI, and CQI, respectively, to be selected from based on CSI configuration.
Soldati discloses sets of mobility features based on smoothed PMI, RI, and CQI, respectively, to be selected from based on CSI configuration (paragraph 13, 16, 85-92; CSI-Prediction including different predictions of one or more of CQI, rank, PMI, SNR/SINR, etc.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Wu, Frank, and Na by deriving sets of mobility features based on smoothed PMI, RI, and CQI, respectively, to be selected from based on CSI configuration, as shown by Soldati, thereby enabling greater certainty of different CSI predictions according to time/frequency granularity specified by one or more of wideband, per sub-band, per PRB/RBG, time window for adapting link state elements.
Regarding claims 4, 11, and 18,
The combination of Wu, Frank, and Na discloses predicting the speed at which UE is moving as a basis for activating bunded CSI RS & reporting (paragraphs 84-86, 94) but fails to expressly disclose generating a CSI prediction based on the CSI configuration to perform downlink transmission based on the CSI prediction.
Soldati discloses analogous art (Title: Link State Adaptation State Information in Telecommunications Networks) generating a CSI prediction based on the CSI configuration to perform downlink transmission based on the CSI prediction (paragraphs 11, 13, 62, 85-88, 94, 126-131, 143-152; downlink transmission based on CSI prediction including user device mobility state indicator).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Wu, Frank, and Na by generating a CSI prediction based on the CSI configuration to perform downlink transmission based on the CSI prediction, as shown by Soldati, thereby optimizing link adaptation for communication parameters between base station and UE in changing network conditions.
Regarding claims 5, 12, and 19,
The combination of Wu, Frank, Na, and Soldati further shows determining a prediction algorithm based on the mobility range classification (Soldati: paragraphs 173-189 describes various different machine learning models/functions used for determined link adaptation parameters) and generating the CSI prediction based on adjusting parameters associated with the prediction algorithm (Soldati: Fig. 5, step 506; link adaptation state update; paragraphs 11-13, 85-88, 103-109, 143-152; link state update based on CSI-Measurement & CSI-Prediction).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Wu, Frank, and Na by determining a prediction algorithm based on the mobility range classification and generating the CSI prediction based on adjusting parameters associated with the prediction algorithm, as shown by Soldati, thereby optimizing link adaptation for communication parameters between base station and UE in changing network conditions.
Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, Frank, Na, and Soldati as applied to claims 4, 11, and 18 above, and further in view of Lee et al. (US20250141515A1), hereafter Lee.
Regarding claims 6, 13, and 20,
The combination of Wu, Frank, Na, and Soldati disclose consideration of both CSI-Measurement and CSI-Prediction (Soldati: paragraphs 11-13, 85-88, 103-109, 143-152; link state update based on CSI-Measurement & CSI-Prediction) but do not expressly disclose modifying CSI configuration based on evaluating the degree of mismatch between CSI prediction.
Lee discloses analogous art including modifying CSI configuration based on evaluating the degree of mismatch between CSI prediction (paragraph 12, 115; Fig. 16 steps 1604-1606; identifying whether predefined event is a mismatch between predicted CSI and actual CSI; deriving predicted CSI again if even is not satisfied).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Wu, Frank, Na, and Soldati by modifying CSI configuration based on evaluating the degree of mismatch between CSI prediction, as shown by Lee, thereby enabling accurate CSI prediction.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu, Frank, Na, Soldati, and Lee as applied to claims 6 and 13 above, and further in view of Marinier et al. (US20130322376A1), hereafter Marinier.
Regarding claims 7 and 14,
The combination of Wu, Frank, Na, Soldati, and Lee do not expressly disclose triggering an aperiodic CSI report based on a change in periodicity of the CSI configuration for CSI report.
Marinier discloses analogous art (Title: CSI of multiple transmission points; paragraph 67; CSI reported in format of RI, CQI and quantized PMI) including triggering an aperiodic CSI report based on a change in periodicity of the CSI configuration for CSI report (paragraph 218-239; triggering aperiodic feedback/CSI based on modified periodicity/offets of some/each transmission point).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of effective filing to modify Wu, Frank, Na, Soldati, and Lee by triggering an aperiodic CSI report based on a change in periodicity of the CSI configuration for CSI report, as shown by Marinier, thereby enabling efficient CSI feedback for multiple transmission points.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 9/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In the Remarks on pg. 12-15 of the Amendment, Applicant alleges the cited references, including Wu’s disclosure of quantizing precoding matrix coefficients and Frank’s disclosure of normalization correction factors for PMI, does not equate to the claimed metric smoothing operation that includes at least one of a reordering function or unwrapping function. Applicant contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize metric smoothing, quantization of precoding matrix coefficients, and normalization for PMI are completely different operations, are not interchangeable, and replacing one operation for another would fundamentally change the functionality.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As previously noted, the contested mappings in the rejection require application of a broadest reasonable interpretation of the express claim language. To determine the broadest reasonable interpretation, the descriptions provided in the Specification as well as knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art is relied upon. Contrary to Applicant’s assertions, the description of “smoothing” in the Specification as related to scaling based on rank and vector length would cause one of ordinary skill in the art to consider “quantization”, as disclosed by Wu, as consistent with this “smoothing” definition. Further still, paragraphs 71-81 of the instant Specification describes “phase reordering” and “unwrapping” within the smoothing operation through equations/functions defining the “wrap around effect” of different DFT codewords in beamforming. This broad description, including disclaimers of “other embodiments…..could used without departing from the scope” and “function…presented with different values/patterns” compares favorably to that of the quantizing of precoding coefficients by weighting phases and amplitudes of antennas that is cited from Wu from paragraphs 66-69 as well as Frank’s disclosure of PMI “normalization” based on rank/RI. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the similarities between “smoothing”, “quantizing”, and “normalizing” with respect to a common “metric”, i.e. precoding matrix/PMI, and would consider these disclosures under a broadest reasonable interpretation as meeting the claimed “smoothing, reordering, and unwrapping”. Therefore the rejections of these contested limitations based on the cited disclosure of Wu and Frank are properly maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 GREGORY B SEFCHECK whose telephone number is (571)272-3098. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 6AM-4PM.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/GREGORY B SEFCHECK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477
