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 . This action is in response to the communication filed on 4/17/2026. Claims 1-20 are pending in this application.
Examiner Note
The examiner is here to serve, to assist, and to help applicant to the very best of his ability. The Primary Patent Examiner position is a position of serving and it is an honor to externally serve the applicant and attorney and to internally serve junior examiners and supervisors. The goal of the examiner is to work with and assist applicant to move cases along as efficiently as possible.
Applicant is encouraged to call examiner to schedule an interview if applicant has any questions about this action, wants to discuss any possible paths forward, has proposed amendments to the claims to run by the examiner, or for any other issues that applicant would like to discuss.
Examiner can normally be reached at (571) 270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov, Monday-Friday, from about 6 AM - 10 PM EST and if your call is missed examiner will try to return call quickly, thank you.
Priority
This application claims priority of PCT/CN2021/113218, filed 8/18/2021. The assignee of record is GUANGDONG OPPO MOBILE TELECOMMUNICATIONS CORP., LTD. The listed inventor(s) is/are: ZHAO, Zhenshan; ZHANG, Shichang.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-17 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 provided that all other rejections under 35 USC 101/112 (if any) are obviated upon upcoming amendments/arguments without raising new issues that necessitate further consideration/search.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/17/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues:
a.
PNG
media_image1.png
300
722
media_image1.png
Greyscale
a. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “D2D or sidelink communication”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
b.
PNG
media_image2.png
630
730
media_image2.png
Greyscale
b. Please see Kwa ¶ 0290 The wireless device may send (e.g., transmit) a signal (e.g., an SRS) and/or message using the target SRS resource with the same spatial domain transmission filter used for the reception of the downlink reference signal (e.g., SSB and/or CSI-RS), for example, if the higher layer parameter resourceType in SRS-Resource is set to ‘periodic’.
Please also see Far Fig. 33 and relevant material in Far from ¶ 0332-0463. Provided sections are shown in response to argument C, thank you.
c.
PNG
media_image3.png
616
718
media_image3.png
Greyscale
c. Please refer again to Kwa ¶ 0290.
Additionally, please see Far Fig. 33 screenshot below and related description, thank you
PNG
media_image4.png
510
896
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Far ¶ 0332-0463 are relevant, e.g. [0398] In yet another example 5.4, further to example 5.2, a gNB/TRP may signal to a UE that the UE may assume that the NZP CSI-RS resources in each n CSI-RS resource sets have a same downlink spatial domain transmission filter. This is illustrated in FIG. 33. The number of groups of NZP CSI-RS resource sets across which a UE may assume that NZP CSI-RS resources do not have a same downlink spatial domain transmission filter is N/n. In some examples, N is not an integer multiple of N. In this case, the number of groups of NZP CSI-RS resource sets across which a UE may assume that NZP CSI-RS resources do not have a same downlink spatial domain transmission filter is floor(N/n) and the number of groups NZP CSI-RS resource sets across which a UE may assume that NZP CSI-RS resources do not have a same downlink spatial domain transmission filter is ceiling(N/n).
Also Far Claims 1-5 and 8-12 are relevant, e.g. 5. The UE of claim 1, wherein: the transceiver is further configured to receive configuration information for a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) resource set, the CSI-RS resource set is partitioned into groups of CSI-RS resources, and the processor is further configured to assume that the CSI-RS resources of each of the groups are transmitted using a same spatial domain transmission filter.
Response to Amendment
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 & 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. (US 20210184824 A1, published 6/17/2021; hereinafter Kwa) in view of Farag et al. (US 20210359745 A1, filed 5/6/2021; hereinafter Far).
For Claim 1, Kwa teaches a method for wireless communication, comprising:
sending, by a first terminal device, M Channel State Information Reference Signals (CSI-RSs) to a second terminal device by using spatial domain transmission filters, the M CSI-RSs being configured to select a target spatial domain transmission filter, wherein the M CSI-RSs correspond to a plurality of CSI-RS resources in a target CSI-RS resource set (Kwa ¶ 0290).
Kwa does not explicitly teach M is a positive integer.
However, Far teaches M is a positive integer (Far ¶ 0332, 0365, 0378, 0386, 0398, 0400, 0406, 0434, 0463).
Far and Kwa are analogous art because they are both related to CSI-RS.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the CSI-RS resource techniques of Far with the system of Kwa to provide beamforming gain and support increased capacity (Far ¶ 0003).
For Claim 2, Kwa-Far teaches the method of claim 1, wherein a repetition field in configuration information of the target CSI-RS resource set takes a first value, wherein the first value is configured to indicate that the first terminal device does not use a same spatial domain transmission filter to send the CSI-RS resources in the target CSI-RS resource set (Kwa ¶ 0287).
For Claim 3, Kwa-Far teaches the method of claim 1, further comprising: sending, by the first terminal device, first indication information to a network device, the first indication information being configured to indicate that the first terminal device requests the network device to allocate transmission resources for sending CSI-RSs, wherein the first indication information comprises a value of M (Far Claim 15).
For Claim 18, Kwa teaches the method for wireless communication, comprising: receiving, by a second terminal device, M Channel State Information Reference Signals (CSI-RSs) from a first terminal device, wherein the M CSI-RSs are configured to select a target spatial domain transmission filter, the M CSI-RSs correspond to a plurality of CSI-RS resources in a target CSI-RS resource (Kwa ¶ 0290).
Kwa does not explicitly teach M is a positive integer.
However, Far teaches M is a positive integer (Far ¶ 0332, 0365, 0378, 0386, 0398, 0400, 0406, 0434, 0463).
Far and Kwa are analogous art because they are both related to CSI-RS.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use the CSI-RS resource techniques of Far with the system of Kwa to provide beamforming gain and support increased capacity (Far ¶ 0003).
For Claim(s) 19, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 1 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
For Claim(s) 20, the claim(s) is/are substantially similar to claim 18 and therefore is/are rejected for the same reasoning set forth above.
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 extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael Keller at (571)270-3863 or michael.keller@uspto.gov. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Brian Gillis can be reached on 571-272-7952.
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.
/MICHAEL A KELLER/
Primary Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2446
Prosecution Insights