DETAILED ACTION
This office action in response to an application filing received January 2, 2024. The Application Data Sheet received on January 2, 2024 has been considered.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements received June 5, 2023 have been considered.
Claim Interpretation
MPEP §2111.04(II) recites:
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. For example, assume a method claim requires step A if a first condition happens and step B if a second condition happens. If the claimed invention may be practiced without either the first or second condition happening, then neither step A or B is required by the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim. If the claimed invention requires the first condition to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires step A. If the claimed invention requires both the first and second conditions to occur, then the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim requires both steps A and B.
The broadest reasonable interpretation of a system (or apparatus or product) claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur. The system claim interpretation differs from a method claim interpretation because the claimed structure must be present in the system regardless of whether the condition is met and the function is actually performed.
See Ex parte Schulhauser, Appeal 2013-007847 (PTAB April 28, 2016) for an analysis of contingent claim limitations in the context of both method claims and system claims. In Schulhauser, both method claims and system claims recited the same contingent step. When analyzing the claimed method as a whole, the PTAB determined that giving the claim its broadest reasonable interpretation, "[i]f the condition for performing a contingent step is not satisfied, the performance recited by the step need not be carried out in order for the claimed method to be performed" (quotation omitted). Schulhauser at 10. When analyzing the claimed system as a whole, the PTAB determined that "[t]he broadest reasonable interpretation of a system claim having structure that performs a function, which only needs to occur if a condition precedent is met, still requires structure for performing the function should the condition occur." Schulhauser at 14. Therefore "[t]he Examiner did not need to present evidence of the obviousness of the [ ] method steps of claim 1 that are not required to be performed under a broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim (e.g., instances in which the electrocardiac signal data is not within the threshold electrocardiac criteria such that the condition precedent for the determining step and the remaining steps of claim 1 has not been met);" however to render the claimed system obvious, the prior art must teach the structure that performs the function of the contingent step along with the other recited claim limitations. Schulhauser at 9, 14.
Claim 18 is a method claim that include at least one contingent limitation. In accordance with MPEP § 2111.04(II), conditional limitations within method claims will be treated as not being required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Claim 18 recites “wherein, when K=L,”.
As the limitation includes an “when” condition, this is considered to introduce a conditional limitation. Therefore, the Office considers the BRI of the claim to include a scenario where K is not equal to L. This limitation does not require the condition to occur, and the claim is required to do nothing when the condition doesn’t occur. The BRI of the claim include that the condition does not occur, as result, the contingent limitations of claims 18 are not included in the BRI of those claims.
Claim 20 is a method claim that include at least one contingent limitation. In accordance with MPEP § 2111.04(II), conditional limitations within method claims will be treated as not being required to be performed under the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI). Claim 20 recites “wherein, when the indicator corresponds to (iii),”.
As the limitation includes an “when” condition, this is considered to introduce a conditional limitation. Therefore, the Office considers the BRI of the claim to include a scenario where the indicator does not correspond to (iii). This limitation does not require the condition to occur, and the claim is required to do nothing when the condition doesn’t occur. The BRI of the claim include that the condition does not occur, as result, the contingent limitations of claim 20 are not included in the BRI of those claims.
Any prior art rejection below might address the identified limitation in prior art rejections
however, those limitation cannot be relied upon to overcome prior art rejections because they are not required in the BRI of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-11, and 13-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Rahman et al., US 20240214851 A1, (hereinafter Rahman).
Regarding claim 1, and 17, Rahman teaches a user equipment (UE), comprising:
a transceiver configured to receive information about (i) L events and (ii) K event types, where L≥1andK≥1 (see ¶ [0148], e.g., the UE 116 transmits the report for n event-types(s), where 1≤n≤N and N=number of configured event-types. The n selected event-types can be fixed (e.g., based on a priority order), or reported by the UE 116 (e.g., via the trigger/message), or based on a signaling (DCI or MAC CE) from the NW 130. When the UE 116 reports the selection via a UCI, the UCI can be a two-part UCI, where UCI part 1 can include the information about the selected event-types (e.g., a N-bit bitmap) and UCI part 2 include the report of the selected event-types),
wherein at least one of the L events is associated with at least one of the K event types (see ¶ [0126], e.g., such reporting can be event-based, i.e., the UE 116 can initiate/trigger the report only when it detects an event associated with the report, where the event can be of a (event-)type: type 0, type 1, and so on. In one example, type 0 corresponds to a beam-related event, type 1 corresponds to a CSI-related event, type 2 corresponds to a time-domain channel property (TDCP)-related event, and type 3 can be a non-CSI-related event (examples provided later). In one example, if a metric (depending on the event-type) is less than or equal to a threshold (or greater than or equal to a threshold), the event is detected or declared positive.); and
a processor operably coupled to the transceiver, the processor configured to determine whether to transmit a report based on at least one of L' events from the L events;
wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit, based on the determination, the report that includes an indicator indicating the L' events (see ¶ [0005], e.g., The UE includes a processor and a transceiver operably coupled to the processor. The transceiver is configured to transmit information including at least one of (i) a trigger indicating a need for transmitting a report and (ii) content associated with the report; see ¶ [0145], e.g., In one example, the information includes an event-type and content (each or a subset) or report quantity/quantities and the corresponding event.).
Regarding claim 2 and 18, Rahman teaches the limitations of Claim 1 and 17.
Rahman further teaches, wherein, when K=L, each of the L events is associated with a corresponding event type (see ¶ [0141], e.g., In one example, the information includes an event-type (e.g., type0=beam) and the corresponding event; see ¶ [0148] - ¶ [0151], e.g., In one example, the UE 116 transmits the report for each configured event-types.).
Regarding claim 3 and 19, Rahman teaches the limitations of Claim 1 and 17.
Rahman further teaches, wherein the indicator corresponds to one of:
a L-bit bitmap indicator (see ¶ [0152] - ¶ [0155], Analogously, one or more
examples described herein, in which the information includes a report-type, can be extended to the case when the information includes multiple report-types. The event-types of these report-types can be restricted to be the same (e.g., each are type0=beam) … When the UE 116 reports the selection via a UCI, the UCI can be a two-part UCI, where UCI part 1 can include the information about the selected report-types (e.g., a M-bit bitmap) and UCI part 2 include the report of the selected report-types. In one example, the UE 116 transmits the report for each configured report-types),
a log2 L-bit indicator, and
a log2 L-bit indicator and a log2 LL'-bit indicator.
Regarding claim 5, Rahman teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Rahman further teaches, wherein Lk events are associated with a corresponding event type, where L=∑k=1KLk (see ¶ [0138], e.g., In one example, the information includes an event-type and content (each or a subset) or report quantity/quantities.).
Regarding claim 6, Rahman teaches the limitations of Claim 5.
Rahman further teaches, wherein the indicator corresponds to one of:
a L-bit bitmap indicator,
a K-bit bitmap indicator (see ¶ [0148] - ¶ [0151], e.g., When the UE 116 reports
the selection via a UCI, the UCI can be a two-part UCI, where UCI part 1 can include the information about the selected event-types (e.g., a N-bit bitmap) and UCI part 2 include the report of the selected event-types. In one example, the UE 116 transmits the report for each configured event-types.),
a log2 K-bit indicator,
a log2 K-bit indicator and a log2 KK'-bit indicator, where K'≤K is a number of event types, and
a K-bit bitmap indicator and a ∑Lk-bit bitmap indicator for a subset of K event types.
Regarding claim 7, Rahman teaches the limitations of Claim 6.
Rahman further teaches, wherein:
when the indicator corresponds to (iv), the log2 K-bit indicator is in an uplink control information (UCI) part 1 of the report and the log2 KK'-bit indicator is in an UCI part 2 of the report, or
when the indicator corresponds to (v), the K-bit bitmap indicator is in the UCI part 1 of the report and the ∑Lk-bit bitmap indicator is in the UCI part 2 of the report (see ¶ [0150], e.g., When the UE 116 reports the selection via a UCI, the UCI can be a two-part UCI, where UCI part 1 can include the information about the selected event-types (e.g., a N-bit bitmap) and UCI part 2 include the report of the selected event-types.).
Regarding claim 8, Rahman teaches the limitations of Claim 1.
Rahman further teaches, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine, based on the L' events, a report quantity, where the report quantity is associated with the L' events, and include the report quantity in the report (see ¶ [0105] - ¶ [0109], e.g., The report is to facilitate/enable efficient/timely/fast/reliable communication over the link/channel between a target entity (e.g., NW/gNB or another device) and the UE 116, and the content (if reported) can include a quantity or quantities … In one example, the content includes CSI-related quantity/quantities. For example, at least one of (RI, PMI, CQI, CRI, LI).).
Regarding claim 9, Rahman teaches a base station (BS), comprising:
a processor; and a transceiver operably coupled to the processor, the transceiver configured to: transmit information about (i) L events and (ii) K event types, where L≥1andK≥1 (see ¶ [0148], e.g., the UE 116 transmits the report for n event-types(s), where 1≤n≤N and N=number of configured event-types. The n selected event-types can be fixed (e.g., based on a priority order), or reported by the UE 116 (e.g., via the trigger/message), or based on a signaling (DCI or MAC CE) from the NW 130. When the UE 116 reports the selection via a UCI, the UCI can be a two-part UCI, where UCI part 1 can include the information about the selected event-types (e.g., a N-bit bitmap) and UCI part 2 include the report of the selected event-types),
wherein at least one of the L events is associated with at least one of the K event types (see ¶ [0126], e.g., such reporting can be event-based, i.e., the UE 116 can initiate/trigger the report only when it detects an event associated with the report, where the event can be of a (event-)type: type 0, type 1, and so on. In one example, type 0 corresponds to a beam-related event, type 1 corresponds to a CSI-related event, type 2 corresponds to a time-domain channel property (TDCP)-related event, and type 3 can be a non-CSI-related event (examples provided later). In one example, if a metric (depending on the event-type) is less than or equal to a threshold (or greater than or equal to a threshold), the event is detected or declared positive.); and
receive a report that includes an indicator indicating the L' events (see ¶ [0005], e.g., The UE includes a processor and a transceiver operably coupled to the processor. The transceiver is configured to transmit information including at least one of (i) a trigger indicating a need for transmitting a report and (ii) content associated with the report; see ¶ [0145], e.g., In one example, the information includes an event-type and content (each or a subset) or report quantity/quantities and the corresponding event.).
Regarding claim 10, Rahman teaches the limitations of Claim 9.
Rahman further teaches, wherein, when K=L, each of the L events is associated with a corresponding event type (see ¶ [0141], e.g., In one example, the information includes an event-type (e.g., type0=beam) and the corresponding event; see ¶ [0148] - ¶ [0151], e.g., In one example, the UE 116 transmits the report for each configured event-types.).
Regarding claim 11, Rahman teaches the limitations of Claim 9.
Rahman further teaches, wherein the indicator corresponds to one of:
a L-bit bitmap indicator (see ¶ [0152] - ¶ [0155], Analogously, one or more
examples described herein, in which the information includes a report-type, can be extended to the case when the information includes multiple report-types. The event-types of these report-types can be restricted to be the same (e.g., each are type0=beam) … When the UE 116 reports the selection via a UCI, the UCI can be a two-part UCI, where UCI part 1 can include the information about the selected report-types (e.g., a M-bit bitmap) and UCI part 2 include the report of the selected report-types. In one example, the UE 116 transmits the report for each configured report-types),
a log2 L-bit indicator, and
a log2 L-bit indicator and a log2 LL'-bit indicator.
Regarding claim 13, Rahman teaches the limitations of Claim 9.
Rahman further teaches, wherein Lk events are associated with a corresponding event type, where L=∑k=1KLk (see ¶ [0138], e.g., In one example, the information includes an event-type and content (each or a subset) or report quantity/quantities.).
Regarding claim 14, Rahman teaches the limitations of Claim 13.
Rahman further teaches, wherein the indicator corresponds to one of:
a L-bit bitmap indicator,
a K-bit bitmap indicator (see ¶ [0148] - ¶ [0151], e.g., When the UE 116 reports
the selection via a UCI, the UCI can be a two-part UCI, where UCI part 1 can include the information about the selected event-types (e.g., a N-bit bitmap) and UCI part 2 include the report of the selected event-types. In one example, the UE 116 transmits the report for each configured event-types.),
a log2 K-bit indicator,
a log2 K-bit indicator and a log2 KK'-bit indicator, where K'≤K is a number of event types, and
a K-bit bitmap indicator and a ∑Lk-bit bitmap indicator for a subset of K event types.
Regarding claim 15, Rahman teaches the limitations of Claim 14.
Rahman further teaches, wherein:
when the indicator corresponds to (iv), the log2 K-bit indicator is in an uplink control information (UCI) part 1 of the report and the log2 KK'-bit indicator is in an UCI part 2 of the report, or
when the indicator corresponds to (v), the K-bit bitmap indicator is in the UCI part 1 of the report and the ∑Lk-bit bitmap indicator is in the UCI part 2 of the report (see ¶ [0150], e.g., When the UE 116 reports the selection via a UCI, the UCI can be a two-part UCI, where UCI part 1 can include the information about the selected event-types (e.g., a N-bit bitmap) and UCI part 2 include the report of the selected event-types.).
Regarding claim 16, Rahman teaches the limitations of Claim 9.
Rahman further teaches, wherein the processor is further configured to:
determine, based on the L' events, a report quantity, where the report quantity is associated with the L' events, and include the report quantity in the report (see ¶ [0105] - ¶ [0109], e.g., The report is to facilitate/enable efficient/timely/fast/reliable communication over the link/channel between a target entity (e.g., NW/gNB or another device) and the UE 116, and the content (if reported) can include a quantity or quantities … In one example, the content includes CSI-related quantity/quantities. For example, at least one of (RI, PMI, CQI, CRI, LI).).
Regarding claim 20, Rahman teaches the limitations of Claim 17.
Rahman further teaches, wherein, when the indicator corresponds to (iii), the log2 L-bit indicator is in an uplink control information (UCI) part 1 of the report and the log2 LL'-bit indicator is in an UCI part 2 of the report (Note that, when the indicator does not corresponds to (iii), “the log2 L-bit indicator is in an uplink control information (UCI) part 1 of the report and the log2 LL'-bit indicator is in an UCI part 2 of the report” would not be performed and therefore would not be included in the BRI and has no patentable weight).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 4 and 12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the contingent limitations under the claim Interpretation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 11677451 B2 issued to Rahman et al.
US 20180124625 A1 issued to Luo et al.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to POONAM SHARMA whose telephone number is (571)272-6579. The examiner can normally be reached Monday thru 8:30-5:30 pm, ET.
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, Kevin Bates can be reached at (571) 272-3980. 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.
/POONAM SHARMA/Examiner, Art Unit 2472
/KEVIN T BATES/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2472