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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/9/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 1/9/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant’s amendments do not address the written description rejections. The applicant has attempted to overcome the first written description by omitting the step of generating a CSI corresponding to a plurality of power offsets. The first issue is not addressed because in order to transmit the CSI “corresponding to a plurality of power offsets”, the applicant would have to measure this CSI for each of the plurality of power offsets. The information that is transmitted would not otherwise exist, according to the disclosure. The second written description issue is not addressed because the applicant does not disclose how the UE performs any specific reception based on what is indicated by the base station. There applicant’ has not disclosed what is indicated about a power offset to the UE that changes the operation of the UE in any inventive manner.
Regarding the prior art, the applicant does not specify in the claims how the CSI that is transmitted “corresponds” to a plurality of power offsets. The provision of CSI regarding a power offset taught by Abotabl reads on the breadth of the claims because it corresponds to a single power offset and thus has a correspondence to all of the potential power offsets. Such an interpretation is within the breadth of the claims because they do not define the plurality of power offset or anything about the CSI or how it is supposed to correspond to the plurality of power offsets.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Section 2163.03(V) of the MPEP states:
While there is a presumption that an adequate written description of the claimed invention is present in the specification as filed. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 262, 191 USPQ 90, 96 (CCPA 1976), a question as to whether a specification provides an adequate written description may arise in the context of an original claim. An original claim may lack written description support when (1) the claim defines the invention in functional language specifying a desired result but the disclosure fails to sufficiently identify how the function is performed or the result is achieved or (2) a broad genus claim is presented but the disclosure only describes a narrow species with no evidence that the genus is contemplated. See Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1349-50 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc). The written description requirement is not necessarily met when the claim language appears in ipsis verbis in the specification. "Even if a claim is supported by the specification, the language of the specification, to the extent possible, must describe the claimed invention so that one skilled in the art can recognize what is claimed. The appearance of mere indistinct words in a specification or a claim, even an original claim, does not necessarily satisfy that requirement."Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Gen-Probe, Inc., 323 F.3d 956, 968, 63 USPQ2d 1609, 1616 (Fed. Cir. 2002)
Written Description Issue #1
Claims 1 and 12 feature the following limitation:
transmitting channel state information (CSI) corresponding to a plurality of power offsets in a CSI report from a user equipment (UE) to a base station;
Claims 5 and 15 feature the following limitation:
generating the CSI information in response to receiving the data from the base station indicating the change in the offset between the SSB and the CSI-RS.
Claims 6 and 16 feature the following limitation:
generating the CSI information in response to receiving the data identifying the plurality of power offsets;
Claims 8 and 18 feature the following limitation:
generating CSI information in response to determining that the one or more pre-configured conditions have been satisfied.
Paragraph 48 of the applicant’s disclosure states the following:
[0048] At step 204, the UE 100 generates CSI measurements for the plurality of power offsets. For example, the UE 100 may generate measurements of any of RSRP, reference signal received quality (RSRQ), SINR, PMI, CQI, or RI for each of the plurality of power offsets. The CSI measurements that are transmitted to the gNB may include any combination of RSRP, RSRQ, SINR, PMI, CQI, or RI and, in some instances the UE may generate measurements of any of the above in addition to the CSI measurements that are transmitted to the gNB.
While the terms which define the CSI measurements are known in the art, the applicant has not provided any description of how these measurements are made distinctly “corresponding to a plurality of power offsets”. The applicant does not describe what is actually being measured with respect to each power offset in order to create a CSI corresponding to a plurality of power offsets that can be transmitted. The applicant is not explicitly claiming the measurement step in the independent claims but the measurement of CSI corresponding to a plurality of power offsets must implicitly be performed in order for the claimed transmitting to have data values to transmit.
In paragraphs 6-8 of the applicant’s specification, the applicant defines the state of the art as providing CSI feedback for a single power offset between CSI-RS and PDSCH. Figure 2, step 202 of the applicant’s invention states that the UE must identify the plurality of power offsets. Paragraph 44 states that the plurality of power offsets include different power offsets between a PDSCH and CSI-RS but does not provide any description of how these different power offsets are defined or how they are related to the state of the art described in paragraphs 6-8. Paragraph 44 also states that a power offset could include a power offset between a CSI-RS and an SSB. Paragraph 45 states that the base station may identify the plurality of power offsets, through direct identification of values and/or identification of one or more pre-configured power offsets. There is no description of what these values define or how they relate to the generation of a distinct measurements “for each power offset” referenced in paragraph 48. Paragraph 45 continues by stating the UE may be preconfigured via RRC with a set of values for powerControlOffset but provides no describe of what “powerControlOffset” means. Paragraph 45 states that the values may be configured as a ratio of PDSCH EPRE to NZP CSI-RS EPRE but there is no description of how such a ratio would apply to more than one power offset, as paragraphs 6-8 explain that a single power offset exists between a CSI-RS and PDSCH. Paragraph 46 provides two examples of unexplained pseudo-code but there is no explanation of how this pseudo-code is related to the generation of measurements claimed by the applicant. Paragraph 47 states that the UE may determine the power offsets in response to determining one or more pre-configured conditions are satisfied but it does not explain how the UE actually would determine the offsets in such a way as to define how the UE generates distinct measurements “for each of a plurality of power offsets”.
Paragraph 48 defines the generation of each measurement group as unique for each different power offset but does not provide any description of what is actually being measured with respect to each of the plurality of power offsets. Considering what is disclosed about the power offsets in paragraph 44-47 and how the generation of measurements based on the power offsets is described in paragraph 48, it cannot be inferred what the applicant is actually measuring with respect to each offset in order to generate the claimed measurements. Paragraphs 44-47 do not define the power offsets in such a way as to define the separate for measurements for the metrics explained in paragraph 48 with respect to each power offset. Thus the applicant has not complied with the Written Description requirement for the reasons described in sections 2163.03(V) and 2161.01(I) of the MPEP because the applicant has not provided any description of how the UE generates CSI corresponding to a plurality of power offsets in order to perform the claimed transmission.
Written Description Issue #2
Claims 1 and 12 feature the following limitations:
receiving, from the base station, an indication of a power offset of the plurality of power offsets, wherein the poser offset is selected by the base station based on the CSI measurement; and
receiving a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH) in response to the indication provided by the base station.
There are two issues with the claims. First, the applicant’s amended language tying a step of “receiving, at the UE, a PDSCH” to the reception of an indication, is not supported. The applicant made an amendment on 6/11/2025 to make receiving a PDSCH an explicitly step but the currently claimed receiving the PDSCH in response to the indication provided by the base station was not described. The PDSCH appears to exist regardless of the indication and thus is not is not received based on the indication. Second, the applicant does not provide a description of how the indication of channel state influences the reception of PDSCH.
The following are paragraphs 50-52 of the applicant’s disclosure:
[0050] At step 208, the gNB 150 selects a power offset. For example, the gNB 150 may select a power offset that achieve specific pre-configured CSI measurements, such as a maximum SINR. In embodiments where a threshold is used to trigger the UE 100 to measure the CSI for the plurality of power offsets, the gNB 150 may select a power offset that causes the threshold to no longer be exceed. In some embodiments, selecting the power offset includes selecting a channel state that corresponds to the power offset. For example, if the UE 100 does not specify power offset but instead sends a grouping of measurements and the gNB 150 selects one of the groupings of measurements, the selection of the grouping includes a selection of the power offset corresponding to the measurements.
[0051] At step 210, the gNB 150 transmits an indication of a selected power offset and/or channel state. The gNB 150 may transmit the selection directly to the UE and/or to a plurality of UEs through group-common or cell-common signaling. If group common signaling is used, a group may be defined using existing RRC procedures for DCI format 2_X.
[0052] At step 212, the UE 100 uses a resource with the selected power offset and/or channel state. For example, the UE 100 may select a resource using the selected power offset for receiving a future transmission, such as a PDSCH transmission. The resource may include a frequency domain, time domain, or power domain physical resource scheduled by the gNB 150.
Paragraph 52 describes the resource as a frequency domain, time domain, or power domain physical resource. There is absolutely no description of how any of these resources are used based on an indication of either the selected power state and/or channel state, referenced in paragraph 51. Those of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that frequency domain, time domain, or power domain physical resources are commonly used in communications between a UE and a base station but one of ordinary skill would also recognize that there are myriad ways in which such resources could be implemented and that such techniques require sophistication that needs to be described in order to convey how the resources would actually be used. For example, frequency domain and time domain solutions are convolutions of each other so they would require completely different implementations in order to “use the resources” and each domain could be implemented in any number of ways. Power domain resources would be used in an entirely different manner than a frequency domain or time domain solution but they could be used in conjunction with either frequency domain or time domain solutions. Additionally, there is no description about how any of these domains that could comprise the resources are influenced by the power offsets or channel state that are part of the indication. The applicant’s complete lack of explanation fails to address how the applicant’s invention receives a PDSCH in any specific implementation. The applicant is claiming the function of receiving based on a power offset but the applicant has not disclosed any detail about his function is performed. Such a lack of description clearly does not comply with the written description requirement for the reasons explained in sections 2161.01(I) and 2163.03(V) of the MPEP.
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 1-10 and 12-19 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.
Claims 1, 5, 6, 8, 12, 15, 16, and 18 recite the limitation "the CSI information". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 1 and 12 define to channel state information (CSI) but not channel state information “information”. The applicant appears to be including a redundant use of the term “information” in the “receiving” limitation of the independent claims and in the referenced dependent claims.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0385814 by Abotabl et al.
As to claim 1, Abotabl teaches a method comprising: transmitting CSI corresponding to a plurality of power offsets in a CSI report from a UE to a base station (paragraph 111, the claim does not define the “correspondence” to the power offsets and as shown in paragraphs 112-114 the CSI has a “correspondence” to a plurality of power offsets); receiving, from the base station, an indication of a power offset of the plurality of power offsets, wherein the power offset is selected by the base station based on the CSI information (paragraphs 112-114); and receiving, at the UE, a PDSCH in response to the indication provided by the base station (paragraphs 110 and 114, the channel is implemented as PDSCH).
As to claim 12, it is rejected for the same reasoning as claim 1.
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) 2, 3, 6, 8-10, 13, 14, 16, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0385814 by Abotabl et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2018/0220399 by Davydov et al.
As to claims 2 and 13, Abotabl teaches a method the subject matter of claims 1 and 12; however, Abotabl does not explicitly teach that the indication of the power offset is received in a message sent to a plurality of different UEs.
Davydov teaches a method comprising: a UE, receiving, from a base station, an indication of a power offset in a message sent to a plurality of UEs (steps 830 and 840).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the transmission/reception management art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Abotabl regarding using a base station to manage how a UE receives PDSCH with the teachings of Davydov regarding sending an indication to multiple UEs because such information can lead to coordinated and therefore efficient usage of the channel.
As to claims 3 and 14, Abotabl teaches a method the subject matter of claims 1 and 12; however, Abotabl does not explicitly teach the plurality of power offsets comprises power offsets between a SSB and CSI-RS.
Davydov teaches measuring a plurality of power offsets between a CSI-RS and PDSCH (Figure 7 and paragraph 48).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the transmission/reception management art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Abotabl regarding using a base station to manage how a UE receives PDSCH with the teachings of Davydov regarding measuring power offsets between CSI-RS and PDSCH because such measurements are useful in determining how to manage the PDSCH taught by Atobal.
As to claims 6 and 16, Abotabl teaches a method the subject matter of claims 1 and 12, wherein the data identifying the plurality of power offsets is received through a first downlink control information (DCI) message (paragraph 148) and the indication of the power offset is received through a DCI message (paragraph 139); however, Abotabl does not explicitly teach the subject matter of claims 6 and 16.
Davydov teaches receiving, at the UE, from the base station, data identifying the plurality of power offsets (step 610); and generating the CSI information in response to receiving the data identifying the plurality of power offsets; and (paragraph 48 and Figure 7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the transmission/reception management art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Abotabl regarding using a base station to manage how a UE receives PDSCH with the teachings of Davydov regarding managing changes in offset to measure because such measurements are useful in determining how to manage the PDSCH taught by Atobal
As to claims 8 and 18, Abotabl teaches a method the subject matter of claims 1 and 12; however, Abotabl does not explicitly teach the plurality of power offsets are indicated using pre-configured conditions.
Davydov teaches measuring a plurality of power offsets indicated using pre-configured conditions (Figure 7 and paragraphs 48 and 49).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the transmission/reception management art at the time of filing to combine the teachings of Abotabl regarding using a base station to manage how a UE receives PDSCH with the teachings of Davydov regarding measuring power offsets based on pre-configured conditions because such measurements techniques can be known ahead of time.
As to claims 9, 10, and 19, see paragraphs 48 and 49 of Davydov.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0385814 by Abotabl et al. in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0359742 by Mondal et al.
As to claim 4, Abotabl teaches the subject matter of claim 1 however Abotabl does not explicitly teach considering a power offset between SSB and CSI-RS.
Mondal teaches considering a power offset between SSB CSI-RS when measuring channel state (paragraph 22).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the mobile communication art at the time of the filing to combine the teachings of Abotabl regarding managing receiving a PDSCH with Mondal regarding considering power offset between SSB and CSI-RS because Mondal explains how this could be relevant to managing PDSCH.
Claims Not Rejected with Prior Art
Claims 5, 7, 15, and 17 were not found to be obvious or anticipated by the prior art. The prior art did not suggest receiving data indicating a change in offset between an SSB and CSI-RS from a base station that is used for generating CSI measurements in the manner claimed. The prior art did not suggest receiving data from a base station identifying power offsets pre-configured at the UE, as claimed in claims 7 and 17. These claims are not indicated as allowable because of the applicant’s lack of description regarding how the independent claims are intended to operate.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS B BLAIR whose telephone number is (571)272-3893. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-5pm.
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, Glenton Burgess can be reached at 571-272-3949. 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.
/DOUGLAS B BLAIR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2454
Prosecution Insights