DETAILED ACTION
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 .
Response to Amendment
The examiner has taken notice that claims 1-20 have been amended.
Claims 1-20 are pending in the current application
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see response, filed 11/13/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 and 16 under 35 U.S.C 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Shanghai Bell, Yum, Kim and Narayanan.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable
over Shanghai Bell (3GPP TSG RAN WG1 Meeting #109-e, e-Meeting, May 9th –
20th, 2022. R1-2204540Nokia, Nokia Title: CSI enhancement for high/medium UE
velocities and CJT Document for: Discussion and Decision.
https://ftp.3gpp.org/tsg_ran/WG1_RL1/TSGR1_109-e/Docs/R1-2204540.zip) in view
of Yum et al. (US 2019/0245603; hereinafter Yum) in further view of Kim et al. (US
202/30353316; hereinafter Kim).
Regarding claim 1, Shanghai Bell in view of Yum in further view of Kim, Shanghai Bell teaches a method comprising: generating, for transmission to a user equipment (UE), a measurement configuration to configure a channel state information (CSI) measurement over a burst of a plurality of CSI-reference signals (CSI-RSs) in a time-domain sequence (Subsection 2.1 and Fig. 6 describes the base station sends configuration information telling the user device (UE) to measure CSI (Channel State Information) using multiple reference signals sent in a “burst” a sequence of CSI-RS transmission over time);
Shanghai Bell doesn’t teach generating, for transmission, the plurality of CSI-RSs; and generating, for transmission to the UE, downlink control information (DCI) to schedule an aperiodic AP-CSI report in an uplink resource that occurs at least a first predetermined processing time after transmission of a last CSI-RS of the burst
In analogous art Yum teaches generating, for transmission, the plurality of CSI-RSs; and generating, for transmission to the UE, downlink control information (DCI) to schedule an aperiodic AP-CSI report in an uplink resource that occurs at least a first predetermined processing time after transmission of a last CSI-RS of the burst (Paragraphs [0103]; [0134]; [0242]-[0252] describes using DCI to trigger/schedule an aperiodic CSI. Describes a predetermined processing time (k) after the last CSI-RS before CSI feedback)
Shanghai Bell doesn’t teach and a second predetermined processing time after transmission of the DCI,
Yum teaches and a second predetermined processing time after transmission of the DCI, (Paragraphs [0248]; [0252] describes the spacing/delay between DCI transmission (containing the aperiodic CSI request) and the CSI feedback timing, which is the “second predetermined processing time after transmission of the DCI),
Shanghai Bell doesn’t teach wherein the first and second predetermined processing times are based on CSI computation delay requirements.
Kim teaches wherein the first and second predetermined processing times are based on CSI computation delay requirements (Paragraphs [0175]-[0177] describes the two processing times (Z and Z’) and the scheduling showing that these times are determined based on CSI computation delay requirements).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shanghai Bell and Yum to incorporate the teachings of Kim to provide specific timing Parameters to enable network to optimize CSI measurement scheduling and improving system efficiency (Kim Paragraph [0004]).
Regarding claim 4, Shanghai Bell in view of Yum and Kim, Yum teaches Wherein a first CSI-RS of the burst is transmitted no earlier than the DCI (Paragraphs [0220]; [0222] describes DCI containing CSI-RS indication, timing parameter m from DCI to first CSI-RS. m≥0 cases (including m = 0) where first CSI-RS is at or after DCI).
Regarding claim 10, Shanghai Bell in view of Yum and Kim, Kim teaches wherein the first predetermined processing time is a first value (Z'2) that corresponds to a first number of symbols between an end of the last CSI-RS and a beginning of a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) transmission that carries the AP-CSI report, and the second predetermined processing time is a second value (Z2) that corresponds to a second number of symbols between an end of the DCI and the beginning of the PUSCH transmission that carries the AP-CSI report (Paragraphs [0176]-[0177] describes first timing value from last CSI-RS to CSI report on PUSCH, measured in symbols, second timing value from DCI to CSI report on PUSCH, measured in symbols both for aperiodic CSI reporting).
Claim(s) 2, 3, 5-9 and 11-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shanghai Bell in view of Yum in further view of Kim and Go et al. (US 2024/0380460; hereinafter Go).
Regarding claim 2, Shanghai Bell in view of Yum in further view of Kim don’t teach determining the UE does not support a low-latency CSI report for CSI measurement over the burst of the plurality of CSI-RSs; and generating the DCI to schedule the AP-CSI report based on said determining the UE does not support the low-latency CSI report.
In analogous art Go teaches determining the UE does not support a low-latency CSI report for CSI measurement over the burst of the plurality of CSI-RSs (Paragraphs [0351]; [0354]; [0402] describes scenarios where “a UE doesn’t find the configured N beam pair/group combinations” which represents a determination of UE limitations or lack of support for certain operations. Discusses UE capability regarding “number of concurrent CSI calculations supported, N.sub.CPU” and situations where processing requirements may exceed UE capabilities “may be 1 or more/exceeded”. When a UE can’t support the configured number of beam combinations or exceeds processing capabilities, it inherently can’t support low-latency operations due to processing constraints);
and generating the DCI to schedule the AP-CSI report based on said determining the UE does not support the low-latency CSI report (Paragraph [0425] describes how processing parameters (Z, Z’, CPU) are determined based on various factors including UE capabilities and processing requirements. Paragraph [0426] shows that timing parameters are adjusted based on the type of CSI report and its complexity, demonstrating scheduling adaptation based on UE support capabilities. Paragraph [0471] describes how the base station cam determine whether a CSI report transmitted from a UE is valid based on the Z and/or z’ values showing scheduling control based on UE capabilities. The adjustment of Z and Z’ values based on UE capabilities and report types).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shanghai Bell, Yum and Kim to incorporate the teachings of Go a capability of a UE, based on the UE capability, a base station can configure the number N of pairs/groups to report per single CSI report for a UE (Go, Paragraph [0405]).
Regarding claim 3, Shanghai Bell in view of Yum in further view of Kim and Go, Go teaches Wherein generating the DCI to schedule the AP-CSI report based on said determining the UE does not support the low- latency CSI report comprises (Paragraphs [0351]; [0354]; [0402] describes scenarios where “a UE doesn’t find the configured N beam pair/group combinations” which represents a determination of UE limitations or lack of support for certain operations. Discusses UE capability regarding “number of concurrent CSI calculations supported, N.sub.CPU” and situations where processing requirements may exceed UE capabilities “may be 1 or more/exceeded”. When a UE can’t support the configured number of beam combinations or exceeds processing capabilities, it inherently can’t support low-latency operations due to processing constraints):
generating the DCI to schedule the AP-CSI report based on high- complexity link adaptation CSI computation requirements (Paragraph [0402] describes scenarios where “number of CMR/IMR resource sets is extended to a plurality (e.g. two) creating higher computational complexity. “Number of concurrent CSI calculations supported, NCPU” and situations where processing “may be 1 or more/exceeded” directly relates to high-complexity computation requirements. Paragraphs [0426]-[0428] describes different CSI report types, with L1-SINR requiring “larger value’ processing times than L1-RSRP, indicating higher complexity).
Regarding claim 5, Shanghai Bell in view of Yum in further view of Kim and Go, Go teaches wherein the first predetermined processing time is to accommodate CSI processing (Paragraph [0425] describes processing time accommodates CSI computation),
uplink control information (UCI) multiplexing, or sounding reference signal (SRS) transmission (Paragraph [0397] and table 12 describes processing time accommodates control information processing and the timing framework inherently accommodates control information processing).
Regarding claim 6, Shanghai Bell in view of Yum in further view of Kim and Go, Go teaches wherein the first predetermined processing time is four milliseconds or five milliseconds (Table 12 and 14 provides the exact formula for converting symbol-based Z’ values to absolute time “T.sub.proc,CSI = (Z) (2048 + 144) .Math. k2.sup.−μ .Math. T.sub.c + T.sub” this formula allows calculation of processing times in milliseconds from the symbol values shown in table 14. Higer complexity scenarios or enhanced processing requirements could extend these base values toward the 4-5 millisecond range).
Regarding claim 7, Shanghai Bell in view of Yum in further view of Kim and Go, Go teaches further comprising: receiving, from the UE, a UE capability report (Paragraph [0402] states “NCPU reported as UE capability and maximum number of pairs/groups (Nmax) reported to base station as UE capability);
and determining the first predetermined processing time or the second predetermined processing time based on the UE capability report (Paragraph [0425] describes how minimum time from reception of the CSI-RS to transmission of the CSI report (Z’)” and number of occupied CSI processing units (CPUs) (OCPU) may be determined/configured/defined).
Regarding claim 8, Shanghai Bell in view of Yum in further view of Kim and Go, Go teaches wherein the UE capability report indicates a value in milliseconds or symbols and the method further comprises (Paragraphs [0382] states that z and z’ are defined in units of OFDM symbols and Paragraph [0379] shows that Xμ is according to UE reported capability beamReportTiming and KB1 is according to UE reported capability beamSwitchTiming where these X and KB values are symbol-based timing parameters reported by the UE):
determining the first predetermined processing time as the value (Paragraph [0379] shows the most direct anticipation where UE capability values (Xμ, KB1) are used directly in processing time calculations. Paragraph [0397] describes various ways processing times are determined demonstrating the flexible determination framework that can accommodate direct value usage).
Regarding claim 9, Shanghai Bell in view of Yum in further view of Kim and Go, Go teaches wherein the UE capability report indicates a plurality of values in milliseconds or symbols that respectively correspond to a plurality of subcarrier spacings (SCSs) and the method further comprises (Table 14, Paragraph [0085] shows different values corresponding to different μ values, where μ represents subcarrier spacing configurations):
determining an SCS of a channel or signal (Table 12, table [0084]- [0085]; [0087] describes how different SCS values are determined based on service requirements and frequency bands);
and determining the first predetermined processing time corresponds to a value, from the plurality of values, that corresponds to the SCS of the channel or signal (Table 14, paragraph [0425] describes that Z’ values may be determined and the table shows this determination is based on SCS-specific selection).
Regarding claim 11, Shanghai Bell in view of Yum in further view of Kim and Go, Go teaches wherein Z2 is 40, 72, 141,152, 608 or 1216. (Table 15 describes CSI computation delay requirements and UE processing timing for CSI reporting)
Regarding claim 12, Shanghai Bell in view of Yum in further view of Kim and Go, Go teaches wherein Z'2 is 37, 69, 140, 560, or 1120 (Table 15 describes CSI computation delay requirements).
Regarding claim 13, Shanghai Bell in view of Yum in further view of Kim and Go, Kim teaches wherein: the second predetermined processing time is a second value that corresponds to a second number of symbols between an end of the DCI and the beginning of the PUSCH transmission that carries the AP-CSI report (Paragraphs [0176]-[0177] describes measured in symbols, second timing value from DCI to CSI report on PUSC that carries the AP-CSI),
Go teaches wherein the second value is Z2 plus a r the CSI computation delay requirements are low-latency CSI computation requirements (Paragraph [0471] describes how the base station cam determine whether a CSI report transmitted from a UE is valid based on the Z and/or z’ values showing scheduling control based on UE capabilities. The adjustment of Z and Z’ values based on UE capabilities and report types. Table 12 describes the fastest/lowest-latency CSI computation requirements in the framework);
Go teaches and the UE is to measure the burst of the plurality of CSI-RSs in one or more CSI processing units (CPUs) and is not to perform any other CSI measurements in any other CPUs while measuring the burst of the plurality of reference signals (Paragraphs [0402]-[0403]; [0425] describes to occupied CSI processing units (CPUs) and OCPU establish CPU-based measurement and number of CPUs occupied by the operation may be 1 or more indicates UE measures using specific CPU allocation. (Table 12 “L = 0 CSI processing units (CPUs) are occupied “ indicates that no other CSI processing units are occupied or busy when the low-latency measurements occurs).
Regarding claim 14, Shanghai Bell in view of Yum in further view of Kim and Go, Go teaches Wherein the second predetermined processing time is a value that corresponds to a second number of symbols between an end of the DCI and the beginning of the PUSCH transmission that carries the AP-CSI report (Table 12, Paragraph [0382] describes the timing from DCI/PDCCH end to PUSCH transmission carrying the aperiodic CSI report),
wherein the value is Z2 plus receiving, from the UE, a relaxation value, wherein Z2 is equal to 40, 72, 141, 152, 608 or 1216 (Table 15 describes receiving, from the UE, a relaxation value).
Regarding claim 15, Shanghai Bell in view of Yum in further view of Kim and Go, Go teaches receiving, from the UE, a UE capability report; determining the relaxation value based on the UE capability report (Table 14 and Paragraph [0425] describes scheduling uses selected relaxation value in timing calculations).
Claim(s) 16-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Shanghai Bell in view of Narayanan et al. (US 2025/0016593; hereinafter
Narayanan).
Regarding claim 16, Shanghai Bell doesn’t teach a method comprising: generating, for transmission to a base station, a first indication of a number of supported channel state information (CSI) processing units (CPUs);
Narayanan teaches a method comprising: generating, for transmission to a base station, a first indication of a number of supported channel state information (CSI) processing units (CPUs) (Paragraphs [0162]-[0163]; [0253]; [0313] describes generating and reporting “number of CPU’s supported” to the base station and indicating number of supported simultaneous CSI calculations);
Shanghai Bell doesn’t teach generating, for transmission to the base station, a second indication associating a first number of CPUs to a second number of channel measurement resources (CMRs); receiving, from the base station
Narayanan teaches generating, for transmission to the base station, a second indication associating a first number of CPUs to a second number of channel measurement resources (CMRs); receiving, from the base station (Paragraphs [0118]-[0120] shows the WTRU must track and report the relationship between CPU availability and CSI measurement resource requirements),
Shanghai Bell teaches a measurement configuration to configure a CSI measurement over a burst of a plurality of CMRs in a time-domain sequence; and performing the CSI measurement (Subsection 2.1 and Fig. 6 describes the base station sends configuration information telling the user device (UE) to measure CSI (Channel State Information) using multiple reference signals sent in a “burst” a sequence of CSI-RS transmission over time).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Shanghai Bell to incorporate the teachings of Narayanan to provide a low-latency aperiodic CSI reporting mechanism with flexible CPU allocation to improve channel tracking accuracy through optimized CPU utilization (Narayanan, Paragraph [0072]).
Regarding claim 17, Narayanan in view of Shanghai Bell, Narayanan teaches method of claim 16, wherein the second indication indicates the first number of CPUs are to be occupied in processing one or more the second number of CMRs (Paragraphs [0111]; [0119]-[0120]; [0168] shows that different processing types occupy CPU, and this information must be communicated for proper system operation).
Regarding claim 18, Narayanan in view of Shanghai Bell, Narayanan teaches wherein the first indication is a number of supported CPUs per component carrier or across all component carriers (Paragraphs [0313]-[0315] describes CSI processes are typically configured per component carrier in carrier aggregation).
Regarding claim 19, Narayanan in view of Shanghai Bell, Narayanan teaches generating an aperiodic CSI report based on the one or more CSI measurements (Paragraphs [0111]; [0118]-[0119] describes aperiodic CSI reporting to channel measurements ).
Regarding claim 20, Narayanan in view of Shanghai Bell, Narayanan teaches wherein the aperiodic CSI report is a low-latency aperiodic CSI report and the method further comprises: occupying all CPUs of a slot to perform the one or more CSI measurements (Paragraphs [0211]; [0214]; [0215];[0219]; [0357] describes CSI feedback encompasses all CSI report types including aperiodic. Aperiodic CSI reports are inherently time critical. Low-latency requirements naturally apply to aperiodic reports, and describes occupying all CPUs of a slot).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MEHERET WOLDEGEBREAL KIDANE whose telephone number is (571)270-3642. The examiner can normally be reached M-F8:30-5.
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, Ricky Ngo can be reached at 571-272-3139. 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.
/Chandrahas B Patel/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2464
/M.W.K./Examiner, Art Unit 2464