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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Rahman et al. for the "CSI REPORTING" filed 02/12/2024 has been examined. This application Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63447294, filed 02/21/2023 and from Provisional Application 63471170, filed 06/05/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Objections
3. Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 8 should depend on claim 7 for the consistency with other set of the claims.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claims 2, 4, 5, 10, 12, 13, 18, 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.
6. As per claims 2, 10, 18, the n 4,l functions, used to compute the Q vectors and d values, are not defined in the claims. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to deduce the metes and bounds of the claim without all portions of the claimed computations being defined. As such, the scope of the claim are indefinite.
7. As per claims 4, 12, 20, the Pri (l,i,f,d) functions, and indicators i 2,4,l; i2,5,l ; i1,7,l, used to compute the priority values and L, v, Mv, d, f, i, l values, are not defined in the claims. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to deduce the metes and bounds of the claim without all portions of the claimed computations being defined. As such, the scope of the claims are indefinite.
8. As per claims 5, 13, the length PCSIRS/2 functions, and coefficients LMvQ, index (l,i*l, 0,di*), KNZ used to compute the priority values and l, il*,0,dl* values, are not defined in the claims. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to deduce the metes and bounds of the claim without all portions of the claimed computations being defined. As such, the scope of the claims are indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
11. Claims 1, 3,, 4, 6, 7 & 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19, 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gao et al. (US#2025/0392362) in view of Hindy et al. (US#11,637,608).
Regarding claims 1, 9, the references disclose a system and method for determining CSI report based on Doppler Domain (DD) basis type, according to the essential features of the claims. Gao et al. (US#2025/0392362) discloses user equipment (UE)/Base Station (BS)(see Fig. 12 for the structure of the device includes transceiver 1240, processor 1210) comprising: a transceiver configured to receive a configuration about a channel state information (CSI) report, the configuration including a value of N₄ and a codebookType set to typell-Doppler-r18 (para [0377]: a UE is configured with a CSI reporting based on a codebook - UE configured with higher layer parameter codebookType set to ‘typeII-Doppler-r18’); and a processor operably coupled to the transceiver, the processor configured to: determine, based on the configuration, the CSI report including a precoding matrix indicator (PMI) and X channel quality indicators (CQIs)(Fig. 13; para [0061], [0363]: CSI may comprise at least one of CQI - Channel Quality Indicator), PMI - Precoding Matrix Indicator. The CQI time window comprises at least a part of time units associated with PMIs determined by the terminal device for the CSI report, and the CQIs reported in the CSI report are conditioned on these PMIs.), the PMI including a first indicator indicating Q Doppler domain (DD) vectors (Fig. 14; para [0312]-[0315]: determining, at a terminal device, whether to apply Doppler/time domain compression or a Doppler/time domain basis type for reporting a precoding matrix indicator (PMI) to a network device; and transmitting, to the network device, an indication of whether to apply the Doppler/time domain compression or the Doppler/time domain basis type), each of length N₄, where X E {1,2} and wherein N₄ >1, and Q > 1 (Fig. 5A; para [0205], [0211]: the length, N4, of Doppler/time domain basis may be configured by the network device 110 or reported by the terminal device 130) and partition the CSI report into CSI part 1 and CSI part 2 (see Fig. 9; para [0247]: CSI structure includes CSI part 1 and CSI part 2).
However, Gao reference does not disclose expressly wherein partition the CSI part 2 further into groups G0, G1, and G2; wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit the CSI part 1 and at least a portion of the CSI part 2, wherein the portion of the CSI part 2 is determined based on a priority value and corresponds to G0, (G0, G1), or (G0, G1, G2). In the same field of endeavor, Hindy et al. (US#11,637,608) teaches a method and apparatus related to generating a CSI report where the contents of the information report have been organized in a descending order of significance in order groups to more readily support a partial transmission. Hindy teaches in Fig. 4 an example of a CSI feedback arrangement for part 2 of a CSI report, in which partition Part 2 of the CSI report into S concatenated sequences of bits (groups) in descending order of priority (i.e., G0, G1, G2, . . . , GS−1, where G0 has highest priority). The sequence of bits representing Part 2 of the CSI report would then be in the form G=[G0 G1 G2 . . . GS−1] (Col. 8; lines 1-11: CSI part 2 feedback report partitioned into one or more concatenated groups based on a priority value).
One skilled in the art would have recognized the need for effectively and efficiently determining CSI report based on Doppler Domain (DD) basis, and would have applied Hindy’s priority reporting levels for part 2 CSI into Gao’s handling of Doppler/time domain compression or a Doppler/time domain basis type for reporting a precoding matrix indicator (PMI) to a network device. Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Hindy’s method and apparatus for generating a CSI report adapted to support a partial omission into Gao’s methods, terminal device, network device, and medium for communication with the motivation being to provide a method and system for handling of channel state information (CSI) reporting in wireless communications.
Regarding claims 3, 11, the reference further teaches wherein the value of N₄ belongs to a set including {2,4,8} and the value of Q = 2 (Gao et al.: Fig. 2A; para [0140]-[0142])
Regarding claims 4, 12, the reference further teaches wherein the priority reporting levels for part 2 CSI, where Priority 0 is the highest priority and Priority 2N.sub.Rep is the lowest, as provided in 3GPP TS38.214, “Physical layer procedures for data”, Rel. 15, Ver. 15.6.0. FIG. 2 illustrates a table 200 of an example of priority reporting levels for part 2 channel state information (Hindy et al.: Figs. 2, 3; Col. 6, lines 4-18).
Regarding claims 6, 14, the reference further teaches wherein when X = 1, the CQI is included in the CSI part 1 (Gao et al.: Fig.16A, para [0406]: plurality of sets of CQIs in the CSI report).
Regarding claims 7, 15, the reference further teaches wherein, when X = 2: the two CQIs are CQI₁ and CQI₂, CQI₁ is included in the CSI part 1, and CQI₂ is included in the CSI part 2 (Gao et al.: Fig. 16A, para [0402]: plurality of sets of CQIs in the CSI report).
Regarding claim 17, 19, 20, they are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 1, 3, 4 examined above. Therefore, claim 17, 19, 20 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed in paragraph above with respect to claims 1, 3, 4.
Allowable Subject Matter
12. Claims 2, 5, 8 & 10, 13, 16, 18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome 112 para, and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
13. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Yuan et al. (US#2025/0337471) is cited to show PMI combination coefficient feedback method, terminal and non-transitory storage medium.
The Zou et al. (US#2025/0365601) shows CSI measurement and report enhancement.
The Huang et al. (US#2025/0300709) shows UL control information packing and prioritization for CSI.
The Zou et al. (US#12,395,220) shows systems and methods for CSI report.
The Ye et al. (US#2025/0309950) shows channel information reporting method and communication apparatus.
The Mittal et al. (US#11,791883) shows method and apparatus for generating CSI report adapted to support a partial omission.
The Hindy et al. (US#12,113,598) shows method and apparatus for generating a CSI report adapted to support a partial omission.
The Hindy et al. (US#12,095,705) shows CSI report configuration.
The Hindy et al. (US#11,799,613) shows CSI report configuration.
The Lee et al. (US#2024/0284220) shows CSI reporting for multi-TRP coherent joint-transmission.
The Rahman et al. (US#12,375,149) shows CSI reporting.
14. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
15. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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 on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
16. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
01/30/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477