DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 1-20 have been examined and are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
3. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
4. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 1/26/2024 and 8/20/2024 have been found to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
5. The drawings were received on 1/26/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
6. 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.
Double Patenting
7. The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
8. Claims 1-20 (hereinafter “Application”) are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/406019 (hereinafter “Reference Application”). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because all the claimed limitations recited in the Application (as described below) are transparently found in the Reference Application, either in a one-to-one fashion (claim to claim) or in a one-to-many fashion (claim to multiple claims) with indistinguishable wording variations, and therefore would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art. Take an example of comparing claim 1 of the Application and claim 1 of the Reference Application:
Application, Claim 1:
A user equipment (UE) comprising:
a transceiver configured to receive information about a channel state information (CSI) report, the information indicating codebook parameters:
NL > 1 combinations of values of {α1,…, αNtrp} from a first table, and
a value of (M, β) from a second table,
wherein {α1,…, αNtrp} is related to a number of a first set of vectors associated with each of NTRP groups of ports,
where ar ≤ 1 for r = 1,…,NTRP, β is a parameter related to a maximum number of coefficients, and M is a parameter related to a second set of vectors; and
a processor operably coupled to the transceiver, the processor configured to determine the CSI report based on the information,
wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit the CSI report, and
wherein the codebook parameters are configured based on a third table that links the first and second tables.
Reference Application, Claim 1:
A user equipment (UE) comprising:
a transceiver configured to receive information about a channel state information (CSI) report, the information indicating codebook parameters:
NL > 1 combinations of values of {L1,…, LNtrp} from a first table, and
a value of (pv, β) from a second table,
wherein {L1,…, LNtrp} is related to a number of a first set of vectors associated with each of NTRP groups of ports,
where NTRP ≥ 1, β is a parameter related to a maximum number of coefficients, and pv are parameters related to a second set of vectors; and
a processor operably coupled to the transceiver, the processor configured to determine the CSI report based on the information,
wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit the CSI report, and
wherein the codebook parameters are configured based on a third table that links the first and second tables.
Claim 2 of the Application corresponds to claim 2 of the Reference Application;
Claim 3 of the Application corresponds to claim 4 of the Reference Application;
Claim 4 of the Application corresponds to claim 5 of the Reference Application;
Claim 5 of the Application corresponds to claim 6 of the Reference Application;
Claim 6 of the Application corresponds to claim 7 of the Reference Application;
Claim 7 of the Application corresponds to claim 8 of the Reference Application;
Claim 8 of the Application corresponds to claim 9 of the Reference Application;
Claim 9 of the Application corresponds to claim 10 of the Reference Application;
Claim 10 of the Application corresponds to claim 12 of the Reference Application;
Claim 11 of the Application corresponds to claim 13 of the Reference Application;
Claim 12 of the Application corresponds to claim 14 of the Reference Application;
Claim 13 of the Application corresponds to claim 15 of the Reference Application;
Claim 14 of the Application corresponds to claim 16 of the Reference Application;
Claim 15 of the Application corresponds to claim 17 of the Reference Application;
Claim 16 of the Application corresponds to claim 18 of the Reference Application;
Claim 17 of the Application corresponds to claim 20 of the Reference Application;
Claim 18 of the Application corresponds to any of claims 5 and 13 of the Reference Application;
Claim 19 of the Application corresponds to any of claims 6 and 14 of the Reference Application; and
Claim 20 of the Application corresponds to any of claims 7 and 15 of the Reference Application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
9. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
10. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
a) Claim 1 recites the parameter ar. It is unclear what the value/parameter “a” corresponds to, since every other variable in claim 1 is defined. The specification does not provide a definition (see paragraph [0701] of the published application), and therefore claim 1 is indefinite.
b) Claims 2-7, dependent upon claim 1, do not satisfy the deficiencies of the rejected base claim and are therefore also rejected.
c) Claims 8 and 15, recite similar features as claim 1 and are therefore also rejected. Please see above rejection of claim 1.
d) Claims 9-14 and 16-20, dependent upon claims 8 and 15, respectively, do not satisfy the deficiencies of the rejected base claim and are therefore also rejected.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
11. 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.
12. 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)(1) 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.
13. Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 13, 15, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by United States Patent Application Publication 2021/0044340 A1 to Rahman et al. (hereinafter “Rahman”).
Regarding Claim 1, Rahman discloses a user equipment (UE) comprising:
a transceiver (Rahman: Figure 3 with [0015], element 310) configured to receive information about a channel state information (CSI) report, the information indicating codebook parameters (Rahman: Figure 14, step 1402 – “Receiving…CSI feedback configuration information including codebook parameters…”):
NL > 1 combinations of values of {α1,…, αNtrp} from a first table (Rahman: Figure 14 with [0190-0191] – “In step 1402, the UE…receives, from a base station (BS), channel state information (CSI) feedback configuration information including codebook parameters configured jointly via a single radio resource control (RRC) parameter, the codebook parameters comprising L, p, ν0, and β, where the parameter L determines a number of spatial domain (SD) basis vectors, the parameter β determines a maximum number of coefficients, and the parameters p and ν0 determine a number (Mv) of frequency domain (FD) basis vectors.”), and
a value of (M, β) from a second table (Rahman: [0190-0191] – “In step 1402, the UE…receives, from a base station (BS), channel state information (CSI) feedback configuration information including codebook parameters configured jointly via a single radio resource control (RRC) parameter, the codebook parameters comprising L, p, ν0, and β, where the parameter L determines a number of spatial domain (SD) basis vectors, the parameter β determines a maximum number of coefficients, and the parameters p and ν0 determine a number (Mv) of frequency domain (FD) basis vectors.”),
wherein {α1,…, αNtrp} is related to a number of a first set of vectors associated with each of NTRP groups of ports, where ar ≤ 1 for r = 1,…,NTRP (Interpreted to correspond to a number of CSI-RS resources/ports (as a TRP), defined by Rahman in at least [0174], [0186-0187], and further with respect to [0190-0191] described above. The number of CSI-RS antenna ports is at least one.), β is a parameter related to a maximum number of coefficients (Rahman: [0190-0191] – “…the parameter β determines a maximum number of coefficients…”), and M is a parameter related to a second set of vectors (Rahman: [0190-0191] – “…the parameters p and ν0 determine a number (Mv) of frequency domain (FD) basis vectors.”); and
a processor operably coupled to the transceiver (Rahman: Figure 3, element 340), the processor configured to determine the CSI report based on the information (Rahman: Figure 14, step 1404 – “Generating the CSI feedback based on the CSI feedback configuration information…”.),
wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit the CSI report (Rahman: Figure 14, step 1406 – “Transmitting, to the BS, the CSI feedback…”.), and
wherein the codebook parameters are configured based on a third table that links the first and second tables (Interpreted to correspond to combining the plurality of parameters as described by Rahman in at least [0190-0200] describing the Codebook Parameters’ Values table – “…a mapping of the codebook parameters configured jointly via the single RRC parameter…”.). Examiner notes any set of information that is calculated and stored corresponds to a “table”. Rahman describes a plurality of tables with associated information throughout the description including the values recited in claim 1 that when combined form the Codebook Parameters’ Value set (table).
Regarding Claim 5, Rahman discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein a value of NL is configured by a radio resource control (RRC) parameter (Rahman: [0160-0165], [0190-0192] – corresponds to L as an RRC parameter.).
Regarding Claim 6, Rahman discloses the UE of claim 1, wherein each of the NTRP groups of ports corresponds to CSI reference signal (CSI-RS) antenna ports associated with a CSI-RS resource (Interpreted to correspond to a number of CSI-RS resources/ports (as a TRP), defined by Rahman in at least [0174], [0186-0187], and further with respect to [0190-0191] described above.).
Regarding Claim 8, Rahman discloses a base station comprising:
a processor (Rahman: Figure 2 with [0014] – elements 225);
a transceiver operably coupled to the processor (Rahman: Figure 2 with [0014], elements 210), configured to:
transmit information about a channel state information (CSI) report, the information indicating codebook parameters (Rahman: Figure 15, step 1502 – “Transmitting…CSI feedback configuration information including codebook parameters…”):
NL > 1 combinations of values of {α1,…, αNtrp} from a first table (Rahman: Figure 15 with [0201-0203] – “In step 1504, the BS transmits, to a user equipment (UE), the CSI feedback configuration information including codebook parameters configured jointly via a single radio resource control (RRC) parameter, the codebook parameters comprising L, p, ν0, and β, wherein the parameter L determines a number of spatial domain (SD) basis vectors, the parameter β determines a maximum number of coefficients, and the parameters p and ν0 determine a number (Mv) of frequency domain (FD) basis vectors…”.), and
a value of (M, β) from a second table (Rahman: Figure 15 with [0201-0203] – “In step 1504, the BS transmits, to a user equipment (UE), the CSI feedback configuration information including codebook parameters configured jointly via a single radio resource control (RRC) parameter, the codebook parameters comprising L, p, ν0, and β, wherein the parameter L determines a number of spatial domain (SD) basis vectors, the parameter β determines a maximum number of coefficients, and the parameters p and ν0 determine a number (Mv) of frequency domain (FD) basis vectors…”.),
wherein {α1,…, αNtrp} is related to a number of a first set of vectors associated with each of NTRP groups of ports, where ar ≤ 1 for r = 1,…,NTRP (Interpreted to correspond to a number of CSI-RS resources/ports (as a TRP), defined by Rahman in at least [0174], [0186-0187], and further with respect to [0201-0203] described above. The number of CSI-RS antenna ports is at least one.), β is a parameter related to a maximum number of coefficients (Rahman: [0201-0203] – “…the parameter β determines a maximum number of coefficients…”), and M is a parameter related to a second set of vectors (Rahman: [0201-0203] – “…the parameters p and ν0 determine a number (Mv) of frequency domain (FD) basis vectors.”); and
receive the CSI report that is based on the information (Rahman: Figure 15, step 1506 – “Receiving, from the UE over an uplink channel, a CSI feedback…”.),
wherein the codebook parameters are configured based on a third table that links the first and second tables (Interpreted to correspond to combining the plurality of parameters as described by Rahman in at least [0201-0208] describing the Codebook Parameters’ Values table – “…a mapping of the codebook parameters configured jointly via the single RRC parameter…”.). Examiner notes any set of information that is calculated and stored corresponds to a “table”. Rahman describes a plurality of tables with associated information throughout the description including the values recited in claim 1 that when combined form the Codebook Parameters’ Value set (table).
Claims 12 and 13, dependent upon claim 8, recite similar features as claims 5 and 6, respectively, and are therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claims 5 and 6. Please see above rejections of claims 5 and 6.
Claims 15, 19, and 20 directed to a method embodiment of claims 1, 5, and 6, recite similar features as claims 1, 5, and 6, respectively, and are therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claims 1, 5, and 6. Please see above rejections of claims 1, 5, and 6.
Allowable Subject Matter
14. Claims 2-4, 7, 9-11, 14, and 16-18 are 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. Examiner notes the rejection of all claims are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 18/406019, and all claims are rejected as being indefinite under 35 U.S.C. §112b as outlined above.
Conclusion
15. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
16. The prior art made of record (please see attached PTO-892) and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Examiner notes the following references not by order of relevance, but to include relevant portions Applicant should consider when issuing a response.
US PGPub 2022/0140981 A1 to Hindy et al. at [0062];
US PGPub 2023/0388080 A1 to Hindy et al. at [0119-0120], [0138-0142];
US PGPub 2024/0275452 A1 to Lee et al. at [0038], [0258];
US PGPub 2025/0080175 A1 to Park et al. at [0218-0226]; and
US PGPub 2025/0260535 A1 to Canonne-Velasquez et al. at [0093].
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV whose telephone number is (571)270-7163. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, R, F 5:00 AM-5:00 PM, W 5:00 AM-3:00 PM (EDT).
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
BENJAMIN H. ELLIOTT IV
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2474
/BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 February 3, 2026