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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
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.
For Claims 1-20, it is not clear that a resource pair can comprise more than one resource pair. A pair of resources is two resources. A quantity of resource pairs in a resource pair is necessarily one. The claims are therefore indefinite in the case of a resource pair comprising more than one resource pair.
For Claim 1 (line 9) and Claim 11 (line 12), it is unclear which claimed feature is modified by “comprising two channel measurement resources”. The claims should probably be corrected to read ---, each resource pair comprising two channel measurement resources---.
For Claims 1 and 11 (last line), “indication information” should probably be amended to ---first indication information--- for consistency with subsequent mentions of indication information identified with ordinal numbers.
For Claims 2 and 12, the claim wording is not clear. It is not clear what is meant by “two channel measurement resources of each resource pair in the first resource pair respectively belong to the two groups of channel measurement resources”.
For Claims 3 and 13, the claims recite “third indication information”, but there is no prior recitation of second indication information.
Claims 3 and 13 recite that the second resource pair comprises the first resource pair. If this is the case, then the second resource pair appears to be the same as the first resource pair. If so, then the second resource pair should be referred to as the first resource pair.
For Claims 5-6 and 15-16, “the first resource” lacks antecedent basis in the claim.
For Claims 7 and 17, 8 and 18, the claims recite “fifth indication information” but there is no prior recitation of second, or fourth indication information.
Remaining claims are rejected as depending from a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 11-13, as understood in light of rejections under 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zhu et al. (US 2023/0058765).
For Claims 1 and 11, Zhu teaches a communication method and A communication apparatus comprising: at least one processor; at least one memory configured to store a computer program that, when executed by the at least one processor, causes the communication apparatus to perform at least following operations (see paragraphs 25-27), comprising:
receiving first configuration information from a radio access network device, wherein the first configuration information is used to configure a plurality of channel measurement resources (see paragraphs 37-38, 56);
performing channel measurement based on the first configuration information to obtain a first measurement result (see paragraphs 52, 55); and
sending the first measurement result to the radio access network device, wherein the first measurement result comprises a joint channel measurement result, the joint channel measurement result is a channel measurement result of a first resource pair, the first resource pair comprises one or more resource pairs comprising two channel measurement resources, the two channel measurement resources belong to the plurality of channel measurement resources and the joint channel measurement result comprises indication information of the first resource pair (see paragraphs 55-57).
For Claims 2 and 12, Zhu teaches the communication method, wherein the plurality of channel measurement resources corresponds to two groups of channel measurement resources and two channel measurement resources of each resource pair in the first resource pair respectively belong to the two groups of channel measurement resources (see paragraphs 55-57).
PNG
media_image1.png
7
8
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
9
8
media_image2.png
Greyscale
For Claims 3 and 13, Zhu teaches the communication method according to claim 2, wherein the first configuration information further comprises third indication information, the third indication information indicates a second resource pair, the second resource pair is one or more resource pairs that are in the plurality of channel measurement resources, that comprise two channel measurement resources, and that are used for joint channel measurement, and the second resource pair comprises
PNG
media_image3.png
8
5
media_image3.png
Greyscale
the first resource pair (see paragraphs 55-56).
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.
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) 4-8 and 14-18, as understood in light of rejections under 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 2023/0058765) as applied to claims 1-3 and 11-13 above, and further in view of Khoshnevisan et al. (US 2022/0322333).
For Claims 4 and 14, though Zhu does teach time and frequency separation of channel measurement resources (see paragraphs 50-51), Zhu as applied above is not explicit as to, but Khoshnevisan teaches the communication method, wherein, when a frequency band used by the radio access network device falls within a frequency range (FR) 2, channel measurement resources of different resource pairs in the second resource pair are different (see paragraphs 93, 116).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art the time the application was filed to use different channel measurement resources when operating in the frequency band FR2 as in Khoshnevisan when performing channel measurement as in Zhu. The motivation would be to optimize reception in a manner appropriate for the frequency range.
For Claims 5, 6, 15, and 16, Zhu as applied above is not explicit as to, but Khoshnevisan further teaches the communication method, wherein a quantity of channel state information processing units (CPUs) occupied by the channel measurement is 2*P, Q+2*P, or Q+k*P, wherein Q is a quantity of channel measurement resources comprised in the first resource, P is a quantity of resource pairs comprised in the second resource pair, k is a value reported by a terminal device or configured by the radio access network device, and Q, P, and k are positive integers (see paragraphs 96-97, 99, 113-116).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to manage CPUs occupied by channel measurements as in Khoshnevisan when performing channel measurements as in Zhu. The motivation would be to optimize reception in a manner appropriate for the frequency range.
For Claims 7, 8, 17, and 18, Zhu further teaches the communication method, wherein the first configuration information further comprises fifth indication information, and the fifth indication information indicates at least one interference measurement resource (see paragraph 56);
a type of the interference measurement resource is a non-zero power channel state information-reference signal (NZP CSI-RS) resource or a channel state information-interference measurement (CSI-IM) resource (see paragraph 56).
Zhu as applied above is not explicit as to, but Khoshnevisan teaches a quantity of interference measurement resources in the at least one interference measurement resource being equal to a sum of Q and P (see paragraphs 125, 129).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to make channel measurements as in Khoshnevisan when performing channel measurements as in Zhu. The motivation would be to optimize reception in accord with the sharing capabilities of the UE.
Claim(s) 9-10 and 19-20, as understood in light of rejections under 35 USC 112, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu et al. (US 2023/0058765) and Khoshnevisan et al. (US 2022/0322333) as applied to claims 1-8 and 11-18 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (US 2022/0256561).
For Claims 9, 10, 19, and 20, the references as applied above are not explicit as to, but Kim teaches the communication method, wherein first Q interference measurement resources in the at least one interference measurement resource are in a one-to-one correspondence with Q channel measurement resources comprised in the first resource, and remaining P interference measurement resources in the at least one interference measurement resource are in a one-to-one correspondence with P resource pairs comprised in the second resource pair (see paragraphs 8, 267-269).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the application was filed to configure the interference measurement resources as in Kim when making measurements as in Zhu and Khoshnevisan. The motivation would be to make allocations in accord with the TRPs in the measurement environment.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wang (US 2023/0361837) teaches a system for configuring channel measurement resources for multiple TRPs. Shao et al. (US 2023/0217284) teaches mapping resources into CMR groups. Yang et al. (US 2021/0321279) teaches mapping CMR and IMR sets.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CASSANDRA L DECKER whose telephone number is (571)270-3946. The examiner can normally be reached 7:30 am - 4:00 pm.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 571-272-7969. 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.
/CASSANDRA L DECKER/Examiner, Art Unit 2466 11/3/2025
/FARUK HAMZA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2466