DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. 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
3. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 29, 2025 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Specification
4. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant' s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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 patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
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.
7. Claim(s) 1, 4-11, 14-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Abotabl et al. (US 20240007253 A1), hereinafter Abotabl et al.
8. Regarding claim 1, Abotabl et al. teaches a method comprising: receiving, by a processor of a communication apparatus, a report configuration from a network apparatus. “Some aspects described herein relate to an apparatus for wireless communication at a UE… The one or more processors may be configured to receive, from a network entity, a CSI report configuration including multiple CSI-RS transmit power configurations” [Abotabl et al. 0007].
In further, Abotabl et al. teaches that the report configuration contains one or more sub- configurations. “As shown by reference number 620, in some aspects, the UE 120 may determine CSI for each of the multiple CSI-RS transmit power configurations” [Abotabl et al. 0096]. Multiple CSI-RS transmit power configurations is a form of one or more sub-configurations.
In further, Abotabl et al. teaches determining, by the processor, a number of occupied channel state information (CSI) processing units based on a total number of resources corresponding to at least one of the sub-configurations and a scaling number. “UE 120 may receive a CSI report configuration (e.g., a CSI reporting setting), may compute one or more CSI processing parameters in connection with performing measurements or the like associated with the corresponding report… UE 120 may compute one or more CSI processing parameters by counting a number of simultaneously occupied CSI processing units (CPUs) associated with a CSI report, a number of simultaneously active CSI resources associated with a CSI report, and/or similar CSI processing parameters” [Abotabl et al. 0074]. The UE will compute one or more CSI processing parameters which is a form of a sub-configuration and the counting number of occupied CSI processing units is a form of a scaling number.
9. Regarding claim 4, Abotabl et al. teaches receiving by the processor, an indication to select a predetermined number of the sub-configurations from the network apparatus via a downlink control information (DCI) or a media access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) wherein the predetermined number of the sub-configurations is selected from said one or more sub-configurations contained in the report configuration. “UE 120 may receive the configuration information via one or more of RRC signaling, one or more MAC control elements (MAC-CEs), and/or DCI, among other examples. In some aspects, the configuration information may include an indication of one or more configuration parameters (e.g., already configured for the UE 120 and/or previously indicated by the network entity 110 or other network device) for selection by the UE 120, and/or explicit configuration information for the UE 120 to use to configure the UE 120, among other examples” [Abotabl et al. 0089].
The reference teaches that a UE processor may receive one or more RRC signaling, one or more MAC-CE, and/or DCI that includes one or more configuration parameters that is already configured for the UE and/or previously indicated by the network entity for selection by the UE.
10. Regarding claim 5, Abotabl et al. teaches the scaling number is set to the predetermined number. “UE 120 may be capable of handling six simultaneous CPUs (e.g., N.sub.CPU=6) … when the first CSI report is triggered, L is increased by 1, when the second CSI report is triggered, L is again increased by 1 (for a running count of 2 CPUs)” [Abotabl 0077]. L indicates the load designation of a CPU. The UE may be able to handle a maximum of 6 active CPUs simultaneously in a UE, which is a form of a predetermined scaling number.
In further, Abotabl et al. teaches determining the number of occupied CSI processing units accumulated by the processor, the total number of resources corresponding to each of the predetermined number of the sub-configurations. Abotabl et al. teaches “FIG. 5 corresponds to the running count of occupied CPUs, L. In this example, the UE 120 may be capable of handling six simultaneous CPUs (e.g., N.sub.CPU=6). The UE 120 in this example may receive one or more CSI report configurations (e.g., one or more CSI reporting settings) configuring the UE 120 to generate five CSI reports, indexed as CSI 1 through CSI 5. The first CSI report (CSI 1), the second CSI report (CSI 2), and the fifth CSI report (CSI 5) may be associated with a load designation of 1 CPU (e.g., O.sub.CPU=1) [Abotabl et al. 0077].
The reference value L teaches a number of occupied CSI processing units accumulated by the processor. The resources CSI 1 through CSI 5 contains one or more CSI reporting setting which is a form of sub-configurations. The CSI set 1 to 5 is a predetermined number of sub-configurations. The number of resources L is increased due to the trigger of the CSI reports, indicating that the total number of resources correspond to each of the predetermined number of sub-configurations.
11. Regarding claim 6, Abotabl et al. teaches measuring, by the processor, a channel state information-reference signal (CSI- RS) based on the predetermined number of the sub-configurations. “Alone or in combination with one or more of the first through sixth aspects, process 700 includes dropping reporting of CSI associated with at least one of the multiple CSI-RS transmit power configurations based at least in part on the number of CPUs associated with the CSI report exceeding a threshold number of CPUs” [Abotabl et al. 0111].
Dropping a CSI report associated with the multiple CSI-RS transmit power configuration once the report exceeds a number of CPUs is a form of a predetermined number of sub-configurations because the amount of CSI-RS measurement done could not exceed the predetermined number of CPUs (“e.g., N.sub.CPU=6” [Abotabl et al. 0077]).
12. Regarding claim 7, Abotabl et al. teaches transmitting, by the processor, information regarding the number of occupied CSI processing units to the network apparatus. “FIG. 5 illustrates aspects associated with counting a number of simultaneously occupied CPUs associated with a CSI report. In some aspects, the UE 120 may report to a network entity 110 the UE 120's capability on the number of simultaneous CPUs the UE 120 can handle, referred to as N.sub.CPU.” [Abotabl et al. 0075].
13. Regarding claim 8, Abotabl et al. teaches a CSI report that contains at least one of the sub-configurations corresponds to an antenna port subset which indicates one or more enabled or disabled antenna ports of a plurality of antenna ports of the network apparatus, “UE 120 may determine CSI for a full-power CSI-RS transmit power configuration (e.g., a configuration in which the network entity 110 transmits using all available antennas and/or antenna ports) as well as one more reduced-power CSI-RS transmit power configurations (e.g., a configuration in which the network entity 110 transmits using less than all available antennas and/or antenna ports) [Abotabl et al. 0096]. Teaching a sub-configuration called CSI-RS to transmit power configurations and controls the amount of transmission from the available antennas. Available antenna indicates that at least one antenna must be enabled.
14. Regarding claim 9, Abotabl et al. teaches at least one of the sub-configurations corresponds to one or more power offset values, and the method further comprises: determining, by the processor, a channel quality indicator (CQI) according to at least one of said one or more power offset values. “CSI reporting setting may configure additional parameters, such as a power offset of an NZP CSI-RS resource element (RE)” [Abotabl et al. 0066]. Power offset of an NZP CSI-RS resource element (RE) is a reference that teaches a sub-configuration that fulfills one or more power offset values.
Following up with, “A channel processor may determine a reference signal received power (RSRP) parameter, a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) parameter, a reference signal received quality (RSRQ) parameter, and/or a CQI parameter, among other examples.” [Abotabl et al. 0067]. Teaches that the channel processor will determine a CQI; Additional parameters such as RSRP, RSSI, RSRQ teaches at least one or more power offset values.
15. Regarding claim 10, Abotabl et al. teaches one or more power offset values comprise a power offset for a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) relative to the CSI-RS. “CSI reporting setting may configure additional parameters, such as a power offset of an NZP CSI-RS… and/or a power offset of a PDSCH RE with respect to an NZP CSI-RS RE (sometimes referred to as powerControlOffset, which may be in dB)” [Abotabl et al. 0066]. Indicating one or more power offset values comprising a power offset for a PDSCH with respect to NZP CSI-RS RE, a form of CSI-RS.
16. Regarding claim 11, Abotabl et al. teaches a transceiver which, during operation, wirelessly communicates with at least one network apparatus. “The UE 120 includes a transceiver. The transceiver may include any combination of the antenna(s) 252, the modem(s) 254, the MIMO detector 256, the receive processor 258, the transmit processor 264, and/or the TX MIMO processor 266. The transceiver may be used by a processor (e.g., the controller/processor 280) and the memory 282 to perform aspects of any of the methods described herein (e.g., with reference to FIGS. 6-10).” [Abotabl et al. 0051]. A communication apparatus (UE) has a transceiver that wirelessly communicates with the network entity (Fig. 6 110).
In further, Abotabl et al. teaches a processor communicatively coupled to the transceiver. “The transceiver may include any combination of the antenna(s) 252… the receive processor 258, the transmit processor 264, and/or the TX MIMO processor 266. The transceiver may be used by a processor (e.g., the controller/processor 280) and the memory 282 to perform aspects of any of the methods described herein [Abotabl FIGS. 6-10 and 0051]”.
In further, Abotabl et al. teaches a processor performs operations comprising: receiving, via the transceiver, a report configuration from the network apparatus, wherein the report configuration contains one or more sub-configurations. On figure 6 of Abotabl et al., teaches a UE (120) that will receive configuration information, such as a configuration of a CSI report including multiple CSI-RS transmit power configurations.
Following up with, “CSI report configuration including multiple CSI-RS transmit power configurations” [Abotabl 0008]. Indicating that the report configuration contains one or more sub-configurations.
In further, Abotabl et al. teaches determining a number of occupied channel state information (CSI) processing units based on a total number of resources corresponding to at least one of the sub-configurations and a scaling number. “UE 120 may receive a CSI report configuration (e.g., a CSI reporting setting), may compute one or more CSI processing parameters in connection with performing measurements or the like associated with the corresponding report… UE 120 may compute one or more CSI processing parameters by counting a number of simultaneously occupied CSI processing units (CPUs) associated with a CSI report, a number of simultaneously active CSI resources associated with a CSI report, and/or similar CSI processing parameters” [Abotabl et al. 0074]. The UE will compute one or more CSI processing parameters which is a form of a sub-configuration and the counting number of occupied CSI processing units is a form of a scaling number.
17. Regarding claim 14, Abotabl et al. teaches receiving, by the transceiver, an indication to select a predetermined number of the sub-configurations from the network apparatus via a downlink control information (DCI) or a media access control (MAC) control element (MAC-CE) wherein the predetermined number of the sub-configurations is selected from said one or more sub-configurations contained in the report configuration. “UE 120 may receive the configuration information via one or more of RRC signaling, one or more MAC control elements (MAC-CEs), and/or DCI, among other examples. In some aspects, the configuration information may include an indication of one or more configuration parameters (e.g., already configured for the UE 120 and/or previously indicated by the network entity 110 or other network device) for selection by the UE 120, and/or explicit configuration information for the UE 120 to use to configure the UE 120, among other examples” [Abotabl et al. 0089].
The reference teaches that a UE processor may receive one or more RRC signaling, one or more MAC-CE, and/or DCI that includes one or more configuration parameters that is already configured for the UE and/or previously indicated by the network entity for selection by the UE.
18. Regarding claim 15, Abotabl et al. teaches the scaling number is set to the predetermined number. “UE 120 may be capable of handling six simultaneous CPUs (e.g., N.sub.CPU=6) … when the first CSI report is triggered, L is increased by 1, when the second CSI report is triggered, L is again increased by 1 (for a running count of 2 CPUs)” [Abotabl 0077]. L indicates the load designation of a CPU. The UE may be able to handle a maximum of 6 active CPUs simultaneously in a UE, which is a form of a predetermined scaling number.
In further, Abotabl et al. teaches determining the number of occupied CSI processing units accumulated by the processor, the total number of resources corresponding to each of the predetermined number of the sub-configurations. Abotabl et al. teaches “FIG. 5 corresponds to the running count of occupied CPUs, L. In this example, the UE 120 may be capable of handling six simultaneous CPUs (e.g., N.sub.CPU=6). The UE 120 in this example may receive one or more CSI report configurations (e.g., one or more CSI reporting settings) configuring the UE 120 to generate five CSI reports, indexed as CSI 1 through CSI 5. The first CSI report (CSI 1), the second CSI report (CSI 2), and the fifth CSI report (CSI 5) may be associated with a load designation of 1 CPU (e.g., O.sub.CPU=1) [Abotabl et al. 0077].
The reference value L teaches a number of occupied CSI processing units accumulated by the processor. The resources CSI 1 through CSI 5 contains one or more CSI reporting setting which is a form of sub-configurations. The CSI set 1 to 5 is a predetermined number of sub-configurations. The number of resources L is increased due to the trigger of the CSI reports, indicating that the total number of resources correspond to each of the predetermined number of sub-configurations.
19. Regarding claim 16, Abotabl et al. teaches measuring, by the processor, a channel state information-reference signal (CSI- RS) based on the predetermined number of the sub-configurations. “Alone or in combination with one or more of the first through sixth aspects, process 700 includes dropping reporting of CSI associated with at least one of the multiple CSI-RS transmit power configurations based at least in part on the number of CPUs associated with the CSI report exceeding a threshold number of CPUs” [Abotabl et al. 0111].
Teaches that dropping a CSI report associated with the multiple CSI-RS transmit power configuration once the report exceeds a number of CPUs is a form of a predetermined number of sub-configurations because the amount of CSI-RS measurement done could not exceed the number of CPUs (“e.g., N.sub.CPU=6” [Abotabl et al. 0077]).
20. Regarding claim 17, Abotabl et al. teaches transmitting, by the transceiver, information regarding the number of occupied CSI processing units to the network apparatus. “FIG. 5 illustrates aspects associated with counting a number of simultaneously occupied CPUs associated with a CSI report. In some aspects, the UE 120 may report to a network entity 110 the UE 120's capability on the number of simultaneous CPUs the UE 120 can handle, referred to as N.sub.CPU.” [Abotabl et al. 0075].
21. Regarding claim 18, Abotabl et al. teaches a CSI report that contains at least one of the sub-configurations corresponds to an antenna port subset which indicates one or more enabled or disabled antenna ports of a plurality of antenna ports of the network apparatus, “UE 120 may determine CSI for a full-power CSI-RS transmit power configuration (e.g., a configuration in which the network entity 110 transmits using all available antennas and/or antenna ports) as well as one more reduced-power CSI-RS transmit power configurations (e.g., a configuration in which the network entity 110 transmits using less than all available antennas and/or antenna ports) [Abotabl et al. 0096]. Teaching a sub-configuration called CSI-RS to transmit power configurations and controls the amount of transmission from the available antennas. Available antenna indicates that at least one or more antennas must be enabled.
22. Regarding claim 19, Abotabl et al. teaches at least one of the sub-configurations corresponds to one or more power offset values, and wherein, during operation, the processor further performs operation comprising: determining a channel quality indicator (CQ) according to at least one of said one or more power offset values. “CSI reporting setting may configure additional parameters, such as a power offset of an NZP CSI-RS resource element (RE)” [Abotabl et al. 0066]. Power offset of an NZP CSI-RS resource element (RE) is a reference that teaches a sub-configuration that fulfills one or more power offset values.
Following up with, “A channel processor may determine a reference signal received power (RSRP) parameter, a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) parameter, a reference signal received quality (RSRQ) parameter, and/or a CQI parameter, among other examples.” [Abotabl et al. 0067]. Teaches that the channel processor will determine a CQI; Additional parameters such as RSRP, RSSI, RSRQ teaches at least one or more power offset values.
23. Regarding claim 20, Abotabl et al. teaches one or more power offset values comprise a power offset for a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) relative to the CSI-RS. “CSI reporting setting may configure additional parameters, such as a power offset of an NZP CSI-RS… and/or a power offset of a PDSCH RE with respect to an NZP CSI-RS RE (sometimes referred to as powerControlOffset, which may be in dB)” [Abotabl et al. 0066]. Indicating a power offset value for PDSCH with respect to NZP CSI-RS RE, a form of CSI-RS.
Following up with, “A channel processor may determine a reference signal received power (RSRP) parameter, a received signal strength indicator (RSSI) parameter, a reference signal received quality (RSRQ) parameter, and/or a CQI parameter, among other examples.” [Abotabl et al. 0067]. Additional parameter such as RSRP, RSSI, RSRQ are one or more power offset values.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Claim(s) 2, 3, 12, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abotabl et al. (US 20240007253 A1) in view of Ding et al. (January 13, 2023 / Machine translation of WO 2023138507 A1 has been relied on and is included with this correspondence.)
27. Regarding claim 2, Abotabl et al. teaches a scaling number in the form of a scaling factor, “the number of CPUs associated with the CSI report may be further based at least in part on a CPU scaling factor” [Abotabl et al. 0092].
Although Abotabl et al. teaches a CSI report that involves information of a scaling factor to be included in the CSI report, Abotabl et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the scaling factor is greater than 1.
In the same field of endeavor of creating a scaling number greater than 1, Ding et al. teaches, “That is, N is greater than 1, and the N power offsets include a first reference power offset and (N-1) power offset offset values” [Ding et al. Pg. 6 paragraph 3] and “The second capability indication information is used to indicate a scaling factor of the number of CPUs corresponding to the N power offsets.” [Ding et al. Pg. 6 paragraph 3]. Teaching that N is greater than 1 and it is used to indicate a scaling fctor for the number of CPUs.
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 teaching of Abotabl et al. to include an N power offset to be greater than 1 as taught by Ding et al... The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to implement N power offset to be greater than one to further inform the capability of the terminal device to determine the CSI corresponding to N power offsets [Ding et al. Pg. 6 paragraph 6].
28. Regarding claim 3, Abotabl et al. teaches determining the number of occupied CSI processing units further comprises: scaling up the number of occupied CSI processing units with respect to one resource associated with more than one sub-configuration according to the scaling number. “Reference number 505 in FIG. 5 corresponds to the running count of occupied CPUs, L. In this example, the UE 120 may be capable of handling six simultaneous CPUs (e.g., N.sub.CPU=6). The UE 120 in this example may receive one or more CSI report configurations (e.g., one or more CSI reporting settings) configuring the UE 120 to generate five CSI reports… first CSI report is triggered, L is increased by 1, when the second CSI report is triggered, L is again increased by 1 (for a running count of 2 CPUs)” [Abotabl et al. 077]. Addressing that the device is capable of occupying up to 6 CPUs simultaneously in a UE. If a CSI report is triggered, L is increased by 1; Representing a form of a scaling number {L = scaling number} and scaling up the number of occupied CSI processing units {CSI report is triggered, L is increased by 1}. The reference also teaches that a CSI report configuration is a resource that contains one or more CSI reporting setting which teaches more than one sub-configuration.
Although Abotabl et al. teaches the determination of the number of occupied CSI processing units and scaling up the number of CPUs with respect to the associated resources and sub-configuration, Abotabl et al. does not explicitly teach that the scaling number must be greater than 1.
In the same field of endeavor of making a scaling number greater than 1, Ding et al. teaches, “That is, N is greater than 1, and the N power offsets include a first reference power offset and (N-1) power offset offset values” [Ding et al. Pg. 6 paragraph 3] and “The second capability indication information is used to indicate a scaling factor of the number of CPUs corresponding to the N power offsets.” [Ding et al. Pg. 28 paragraph 4]. Teaching that N is greater than 1 and it is used to indicate a scaling factor for the number of CPUs as a form of N power offsets.
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 teaching of Abotabl et al. to include an N power offset to be greater than 1 as taught by Ding et al... The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to implement N power offset to be greater than one to further inform the capability of the terminal device to “determine channel state information corresponding to N power offsets” [Ding et al. Pg. 6 paragraph 6].
29. Regarding claim 12, Abotabl et al. teaches a scaling number in the form of a scaling factor, “the number of CPUs associated with the CSI report may be further based at least in part on a CPU scaling factor” [Abotabl et al. 0092].
Although Abotabl et al. teaches a CSI report that involves information of a scaling factor to be included in the CSI report, Abotabl et al. does not explicitly teach wherein the scaling factor is greater than 1.
In the same field of endeavor of creating a scaling number greater than 1, Ding et al. teaches, “That is, N is greater than 1, and the N power offsets include a first reference power offset and (N-1) power offset offset values” [Ding et al. Pg. 6 paragraph 3] and “The second capability indication information is used to indicate a scaling factor of the number of CPUs corresponding to the N power offsets.” [Ding et al. Pg. 6 paragraph 3]. Teaching that N is greater than 1 and it is used to indicate a scaling factor for the number of CPUs.
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 teaching of Abotabl et al. to include an N power offset to be greater than 1 as taught by Ding et al... The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to implement N power offset to be greater than one to further inform the capability of the terminal device to determine the CSI corresponding to N power offsets [Ding et al. Pg. 6 paragraph 6].
30. Regarding claim 13, Abotabl et al. teaches determining the number of occupied CSI processing units further comprises: scaling up the number of occupied CSI processing units with respect to one resource associated with more than one sub-configuration according to the scaling number. “Reference number 505 in FIG. 5 corresponds to the running count of occupied CPUs, L. In this example, the UE 120 may be capable of handling six simultaneous CPUs (e.g., N.sub.CPU=6). The UE 120 in this example may receive one or more CSI report configurations (e.g., one or more CSI reporting settings) configuring the UE 120 to generate five CSI reports… first CSI report is triggered, L is increased by 1, when the second CSI report is triggered, L is again increased by 1 (for a running count of 2 CPUs)” [Abotabl et al. 077]. Addressing that the device is capable of occupying up to 6 CPUs simultaneously in a UE. If a CSI report is triggered, L is increased by 1; Representing a form of a scaling number {L = scaling number} and scaling up the number of occupied CSI processing units {CSI report is triggered, L is increased by 1}. The reference also teaches that a CSI report configuration is a resource that contains one or more CSI reporting setting which teaches more than one sub-configuration.
Although Abotabl et al. teaches the determination of the number of occupied CSI processing units and scaling up the number of CPUs with respect to the associated resources and sub-configuration, Abotabl et al. does not explicitly teach that the scaling number must be greater than 1.
In the same field of endeavor of making a scaling number greater than 1, Ding et al. teaches, “That is, N is greater than 1, and the N power offsets include a first reference power offset and (N-1) power offset offset values” [Ding et al. Pg. 6 paragraph 3] and “The second capability indication information is used to indicate a scaling factor of the number of CPUs corresponding to the N power offsets.” [Ding et al. Pg. 28 paragraph 4]. Teaching that N is greater than 1 and it is used to indicate a scaling factor for the number of CPUs as a form of N power offsets.
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 teaching of Abotabl et al. to include an N power offset to be greater than 1 as taught by Ding et al... The suggestion/motivation to do so would have been to implement N power offset to be greater than one to further inform the capability of the terminal device to “determine channel state information corresponding to N power offsets” [Ding et al. Pg. 6 paragraph 6].
Conclusion
31. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
32. The relevance of this prior art, “INDICATION OF PROPOSED CHANNEL STATE INFORMATION REPORTING SCHEME” Document ID WO 2022191760 A1; The communication device can further determine a link quality measurement using CSI resources associated with the plurality of CSI reporting configurations. Responsive to determining the link quality measurement, the communication device can determine a CSI reporting configuration to be used in communicating CSI with the network node from the plurality of CSI reporting configurations based on the link quality measurement.
33. The relevance of this prior art, “METHOD AND DEVICE FOR ADJUSTING DOWNLINK POWER IN WIRELESS COMMUNICATION SYSTEM” Document ID WO 2023014123 A1; The invention supports next-generation mobile communication system are to navigate explosive data traffic, drastic increase in transmission rate per user, significantly increased number of connected devices, very low end-to-end latency, and high energy efficiency. The invention utilizes CSI reports to keep track on resources to adjust transmission power between the UE and network apparatus.
34. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL THANH TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9841. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri Flex 8:00am-5:00pm.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PAUL THANH TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9841. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri Flex 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached at 571-270-1420. 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.
/PAUL THANH TRAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
January 8, 2026
/GARY MUI/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2465