DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the Applicant’s submission filed on 01/23/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments, filed on 01/23/2026 with respect to claim rejections under 35 USC 103, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: “However, the cited portion of Zhang's disclosure merely refers to there being layer common amplitude restrictions for Type II codebooks. The cited portion of Zhang's disclosure is silent with regard to the layer common amplitude restriction being for a port selection codebook, as specified in the claims. Accordingly, Applicant respectfully submits that the claimed subject matter is not found in the cited portions of Zhang; and thus, Zhang cannot cure the deficiencies of Sun. Accordingly, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established.”
Examiner’s response: In paragraph 0071, Zhang states “The beam-specific maximum amplitude value, for both 3GPP Rel-15 and 3GPP Rel-16 Type II, applies for both polarizations as well as for all layers.”. In this paragraph, Zhang teaches that the “beam-specific maximum amplitude value for all layers’ is configured for both 3GPP Rel-15 and 3GPP Rel-16 Type II codebooks.
Then, in paragraphs 0043-0051, Zhang teaches that the 3GPP Rel-15 Type II codebook may be a 3GPP Rel-15 Type II Port Selection codebook and that the 3GPP Rel-16 Type II codebook may be a 3GPP Rel-16 Type II Port Selection codebook.
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.
Claims 1, 3-7, 9, 11-15, 17-21, 23 and 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sun et al. (US 2023/0216558 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (US 2025/0220482 A1).
Consider claims 1, 15, 29 and 30:
Sun discloses an apparatus configured for wireless communications (see Fig. 14 and paragraph 0156, where Sun describes a user equipment (UE) in a wireless communication system), comprising:
one or more memories (see Fig. 15 and paragraph 0168, where Sun describes that the UE includes a memory 1506); and
one or more processors coupled to the one or more memories (see Fig. 15 and paragraph 0168, where Sun describes a processor 1504 that is connected to the memory 1506), the one or more processors being configured to cause the apparatus to:
obtain a configuration indicating, for a type of port selection codebook associated with precoding matrix indicator (PMI) feedback (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0091, where Sun describes that the user equipment (UE) receives a channel state information (CSI) report configuration (CSI-ReportConfig) from a base station, the CSI-ReportConfig indicates to the UE to select L CSI-RS ports from P CSI-RS ports; see paragraphs 0026-0027, where Sun describes that the UE is configured for Type II port selection codebook associated with precoding matrix index (PMI) feedback), one or more conditions applied to one or more first ports among a plurality of ports associated with the PMI feedback (see paragraph 0037-0044, where Sun describes that the UE is configured to only select L CSI-RS ports out of P CSI-RS ports specified by a port selection matrix W1; see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0033, where Sun describes that the port selection matrix W1 is part of PMI feedback matrix W),
wherein the one or more conditions include one or more first maximum allowed amplitude coefficients (see paragraph 0138, where Sun describes that the UE is configured with a maximum allowed amplitude for antenna ports in CSI reporting),
obtain one or more first reference signals (see paragraph 0030, where Sun describes that the UE measures a received channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS)); and
send a first report based on the one or more first reference signals (see paragraph 0030, where Sun describes that the UE measures the CSI-RS and provides feedback to the base station),
the first report comprising the PMI feedback, the PMI feedback being in accordance with the configuration (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0091, where Sun describes that the UE generates the port selection matrix W1 corresponding to the configuration signal CSI-ReportConfig, the UE transmits the port selection matrix W1 to the base station; see Fig. 1 and paragraph 0033, where Sun describes that the port selection matrix W1 is part of PMI feedback matrix).
As discussed above, Sun discloses a configuration based on Type II codebook (see paragraphs 0026-0027, where Sun describes that the UE is configured for Type II port selection codebook associated with precoding matrix index (PMI) feedback). However, Sun does not explicitly disclose: the configuration further indicates that a first maximum allowed amplitude coefficients of the one or more first maximum allowed amplitude coefficients is common to a plurality of a multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) layers.
Zhang teaches: a configuration indicates that a first maximum allowed amplitude coefficients of one or more first maximum allowed amplitude coefficients is common to a plurality of a multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) layers (see paragraph 0071, where Zhang describes that in a configuration with the Type II codebook, the beam-specific maximum amplitude value applies for all layers; see paragraph 0020, where Zhang describes that the CSI Type II reporting protocol has been specifically designed to enable MU-MIMO operations).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include: the configuration further indicates that a first maximum allowed amplitude coefficients of the one or more first maximum allowed amplitude coefficients is common to a plurality of a multiple-input and multiple-output (MIMO) layers, as taught by Zhang to modify the method of Sun in order to meet the 3GPP standard, as discussed by Zhang (see paragraph 0071).
Consider claims 3 and 17:
Sun in view of Zhang discloses the invention of claims 1 and 15 above. Sun discloses: each of the one or more first maximum allowed amplitude coefficients define a peak amplitude that the apparatus is allowed to report for a port in the PMI feedback (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 0136, where Sun describes a restriction applied to a beam group generated by N1 vertical antennas and N2 horizontal antennas, the restriction indicates a maximum allowed amplitude configured for each beam in each restricted beam group the UE may consider in reporting CSI, i.e., the PMI feedback; see paragraph 0145, where Sun describes that the N1 vertical antennas and N2 horizontal antennas correspond to a number of transmit ports).
Consider claims 4 and 18:
Sun in view of Zhang discloses the invention of claims 1 and 15 above. Sun discloses: each of the one or more first maximum allowed amplitude coefficients is set to a value among a set of values for a maximum allowed amplitude, wherein the set of values include 0,
1
/
4
,
1
/
2
,
and 1 (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 0136, where Sun describes that the maximum allowed amplitude levels are: 0,
1
/
4
,
1
/
2
,
and 1).
Consider claims 5 and 19:
Sun in view of Zhang discloses the invention of claims 1 and 15 above. Sun discloses: the configuration further indicates, for each of the one or more ports, a maximum allowed amplitude coefficient selected from the one or more first maximum allowed amplitude coefficients (see Fig. 9 and paragraph 0136, where Sun describes that a maximum allowed amplitude is configured for each beam of an antenna port).
Consider claims 6 and 20:
Sun in view of Zhang discloses the invention of claims 1 and 15 above. Sun discloses: the configuration further indicates that the one or more first maximum allowed amplitude coefficients are specific to the type of port selection codebook (see paragraphs 0026-0027, where Sun describes that the UE is configured for Type II port selection codebook).
Consider claims 7 and 21:
Sun in view of Zhang discloses the invention of claims 6 and 20 above. Sun discloses: the type of port selection codebook includes a Type-II port selection codebook, an enhanced Type-II port selection codebook, or a further enhanced Type-II port selection codebook (see paragraph 0031, where Sun describes that Type II port selection codebook enhancement is used in PMI feedback).
Consider claims 9 and 23:
Sun in view of Zhang discloses the invention of claims 1 and 15 above. Sun discloses: the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to: obtain an indication to report the PMI feedback in accordance with one or more second maximum allowed amplitude coefficients; obtain one or more second reference signals; and send a second report based on the one or more second reference signals according to a usage delay for the one or more second maximum allowed amplitude coefficients, the second report comprising the PMI feedback, the PMI feedback being in accordance with the one or more second maximum allowed amplitude coefficients (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0091, where Sun describes a flowchart for program execution by the processor in the UE, Examiner’s comment: the processor would execute the program a number of times with a usage delay between two executions).
Consider claims 11 and 25:
Sun in view of Zhang discloses the invention of claims 1 and 15 above. Sun discloses: each of the one or more ports is associated with a different spatial beam (see paragraph 0145, where Sun describes that a smaller number of transmit ports may suggest wider spatial beams, and a larger number of transmit ports may suggest narrow spatial beams).
Consider claims 12 and 26:
Sun in view of Zhang discloses the invention of claims 1 and 15 above. Sun discloses: the one or more first maximum allowed amplitude coefficients depend on one or more of a carrier, a bandwidth part of the carrier, or a transmission time interval (see paragraph 0136, where Sun describes that the maximum allowed amplitude is configured for wideband).
Consider claims 13 and 27:
Sun in view of Zhang discloses the invention of claims 1 and 15 above. Sun discloses: the configuration includes one or more indications that one or more second ports among the plurality of ports are disabled for reporting in the PMI feedback; and the PMI feedback excludes precoding information associated with the one or more second ports (see Fig. 4 and paragraph 0091, where Sun describes that the user equipment (UE) receives a channel state information (CSI) report configuration (CSI-ReportConfig) from a base station, the CSI-ReportConfig indicates to the UE to select L CSI-RS ports from P CSI-RS ports for the PMI feedback, therefore, (P-L) ports are disabled/excluded for the PMI feedback).
Consider claims 14 and 28:
Sun in view of Zhang discloses the invention of claims 1 and 15 above. Sun discloses: to obtain the configuration, the one or more processors are configured to cause the apparatus to obtain the configuration via radio resource control (RRC) signaling (see paragraph 0148, where Sun describes that the base station configures the UE via radio resource control (RRC) signaling).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 24 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.
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 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 LIHONG YU whose telephone number is (571)270-5147. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00 am-6:00 pm EST Monday-Friday.
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, Hannah S. Wang can be reached at (571)272-9018. 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.
/LIHONG YU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2631