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.
Claim 12 is 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.
RE claim 12, the claim recites the limitation " wherein the at least one processor, to cause the UE to transmit the CSI-RS, is operable to cause the UE to transmit repetitions of a CSI-RS using a same spatial transmission filter.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 11, from which claim 12 depends, states that the “network node” and not the UE is what transmits CSI-RS. This is further indicated by the originally filed specification at paragraph 86 and Figure 4 which disclose that a UE receives a CSI-RS transmitted by a network node using a single spatial filter, wherein the UE uses separate filters. Given the lack of evidence that the specification as originally filed supports UE transmission of CSI-RS, Examiner has interpreted this claim, for the purposes of Examination, such that the intended claim was to the network node transmitting the CSI-RS and not the UE.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 10-11, 13, 19-21 and 25-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak et al. (US 2019/0068343, Kwak hereafter) in view of Frenne et al. (US 2022/0039124, Frenne hereafter).
RE claims 1 and 19, Kwak discloses a user equipment (US) and method for wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor communicatively coupled with the at least one memory (Figure 21 and paragraphs 42-46 and 183), the at least one processor operable to cause the UE to: receive configuration information indicating one or more configurations of CSI-RS resources for one or more CSI-RS resource sets, wherein each configuration of the one or more configurations includes a respective number of CSI-RS resources indicated by the one or more supported numbers of CSI-RS resources (Paragraphs 166-168, discloses: “the configuration of a plurality of CSI-RS resource sets. A plurality of CSI-RS resource sets may be configured, and individual CSI-RS resource sets are individually configured via ResourceSetConfig. ResourceSetConfig has ResourceSetConfigld, CSI-RS-ResourceConfigList, and CSI-RS ResourceRepetitionConfig configurations.”, and “In addition, when the CSI-RS resource repetition is configured within the CSI-RS resource set, when OFDM symbols at which corresponding CSI-RS resources are transmitted are the same according to CSI-RS-ResourceMapping configuration of each of the CSI-RS resources, the CSI-RS resources may not be allowed for repetition configuration or the terminal may be configured to disregard the corresponding configuration;”) and measure a CSI-RS in accordance with the configuration information (Paragraph 59: “The CSI-RS is used to measure the channel state of a reference signal transmitted for terminals belonging to one cell. A plurality of CSI-RSs may be transmitted in a single cell.”)
Kwak does not explicitly disclose the UE transmitting information indicating one or more supported numbers of channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) resources per CSI-RS resource set.
However, Frenne teaches the UE transmitting information indicating one or more supported numbers of channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) resources per CSI-RS resource set (Paragraphs 87-94 teaches UE capability signaling. Among those signaled is “recommended CSI-RS resource repetition number per resource set”) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE and method of Kwak with the teachings Frenne to provide for UE capability aware configuration of CSI-RS measurement and reporting.
RE claims 2 and 20, Kwak in view of Frenne discloses the UE of claim 1 and the method of claim 19 as set forth above. Note that Kwak further discloses wherein the configuration information is associated with repetition of CSI-RS resources (Paragraph 166-168: “CSI-RS ResourceRepetitionConfig configurations”).
RE claims 4 and 21, Kwak in view of Frenne discloses the UE of claim 1 and the method of claim 19 as set forth above. Note that Kwak further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further operable to cause the UE to receive signaling indicating a selected configuration of the one or more configurations (Paragraphs 166-168, discloses: “the configuration of a plurality of CSI-RS resource sets. A plurality of CSI-RS resource sets may be configured, and individual CSI-RS resource sets are individually configured via ResourceSetConfig. ResourceSetConfig has ResourceSetConfigld, CSI-RS-ResourceConfigList, and CSI-RS ResourceRepetitionConfig configurations.”, and “In addition, when the CSI-RS resource repetition is configured within the CSI-RS resource set, when OFDM symbols at which corresponding CSI-RS resources are transmitted are the same according to CSI-RS-ResourceMapping configuration of each of the CSI-RS resources, the CSI-RS resources may not be allowed for repetition configuration or the terminal may be configured to disregard the corresponding configuration;”), wherein measuring the CSI-RS is in accordance with the selected configuration (Paragraph 59: “The CSI-RS is used to measure the channel state of a reference signal transmitted for terminals belonging to one cell. A plurality of CSI-RSs may be transmitted in a single cell.”)
RE claims 10 and 25, Kwak discloses a network node and method or wireless communication, comprising: at least one memory; and at least one processor communicatively coupled with the at least one memory (Figure 21 and paragraphs 42-46 and 183), the at least one processor operable to cause the network node to: transmit configuration information indicating one or more configurations of CSI-RS resources for one or more CSI-RS resource sets, wherein each configuration of the one or more configurations includes a respective number of CSI-RS resources indicated by the one or more supported numbers of CSI-RS resources (Paragraphs 166-168, discloses: “the configuration of a plurality of CSI-RS resource sets. A plurality of CSI-RS resource sets may be configured, and individual CSI-RS resource sets are individually configured via ResourceSetConfig. ResourceSetConfig has ResourceSetConfigld, CSI-RS-ResourceConfigList, and CSI-RS ResourceRepetitionConfig configurations.”, and “In addition, when the CSI-RS resource repetition is configured within the CSI-RS resource set, when OFDM symbols at which corresponding CSI-RS resources are transmitted are the same according to CSI-RS-ResourceMapping configuration of each of the CSI-RS resources, the CSI-RS resources may not be allowed for repetition configuration or the terminal may be configured to disregard the corresponding configuration;”),; and transmit a CSI-RS in accordance with the configuration information (Paragraph 59: “The CSI-RS is used to measure the channel state of a reference signal transmitted for terminals belonging to one cell. A plurality of CSI-RSs may be transmitted in a single cell.”).
Kwak does not explicitly disclose the network node receive information indicating one or more supported numbers of channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) resources per CSI-RS resource set for a user equipment (UE).
However, Frenne teaches the network node receive information indicating one or more supported numbers of channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) resources per CSI-RS resource set for a user equipment (UE) (Paragraphs 87-94 teaches UE capability signaling. Among those signaled is “recommended CSI-RS resource repetition number per resource set”) .
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the network node and method of Kwak with the teachings Frenne to provide for UE capability aware configuration of CSI-RS measurement and reporting.
RE claims 11 and 26, Kwak in view of Frenne discloses the network node of claim 10 and the method of claim 25 as set forth above. Note that Kwak further discloses wherein the configuration information is associated with repetition of CSI-RS resources (Paragraph 166-168: “CSI-RS ResourceRepetitionConfig configurations”).
RE claims 13 and 27, Kwak in view of Frenne discloses the network node of claim 10 and the method of claim 25 as set forth above. Note that Kwak further discloses wherein the at least one processor is further operable to cause the network node to transmit signaling indicating a selected configuration of the one or more configurations (Paragraphs 166-168, discloses: “the configuration of a plurality of CSI-RS resource sets. A plurality of CSI-RS resource sets may be configured, and individual CSI-RS resource sets are individually configured via ResourceSetConfig. ResourceSetConfig has ResourceSetConfigld, CSI-RS-ResourceConfigList, and CSI-RS ResourceRepetitionConfig configurations.”, and “In addition, when the CSI-RS resource repetition is configured within the CSI-RS resource set, when OFDM symbols at which corresponding CSI-RS resources are transmitted are the same according to CSI-RS-ResourceMapping configuration of each of the CSI-RS resources, the CSI-RS resources may not be allowed for repetition configuration or the terminal may be configured to disregard the corresponding configuration;”), wherein transmitting the CSI-RS is in accordance with the selected configuration (Paragraph 59: “The CSI-RS is used to measure the channel state of a reference signal transmitted for terminals belonging to one cell. A plurality of CSI-RSs may be transmitted in a single cell.”)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Frenne and further in view of Liu et al. (US 2025/0125856. Liu hereafter).
RE claim 3, Kwak in view of Frenne discloses the UE of claim 2 as set forth above. Kwak in view of Frenne does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor, to cause the UE to measure the CSI-RS, is operable to cause the UE to receive the CSI-RS on a set of CSI-RS resources using two or more different spatial reception filter.
However, Liu teaches wherein the at least one processor, to cause the UE to measure the CSI-RS, is operable to cause the UE to receive the CSI-RS on a set of CSI-RS resources using two or more different spatial reception filter (Paragraph 217 teaches: “transmitting a CSI-RS resource set whose repetitions are set to open or ON, that is, all CSI-RS resources in the CSI-RS resource set are transmitted by using the optimal transmitting spatial filter corresponding to the first checkpoint predicted by the first network model, and the terminal device measures the CSI-RSs through different receiving spatial filters and selects the optimal receiving spatial filter.”)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE of Kwak in view of Frenne with the teachings of Liu since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 5-9, 14-18, 22-24 and 28-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Frenne and further in view of Kang et al. (US 2020/0068549, Kang hereafter).
RE claims 5, 14, 22 and 28, Kwak in view of Frenne discloses the UE of claim 4, network node of claim 13 and methods of claims 21 and 27 as set forth above. Kwak in view of Frenne does not explicitly disclose wherein the selected configuration is a first configuration for beam management, and wherein the signaling indicates a second configuration for channel state information (CSI) measurement that is mapped to the first configuration.
However, Kang teaches wherein the selected configuration is a first configuration for beam management, and wherein the signaling indicates a second configuration for channel state information (CSI) measurement that is mapped to the first configuration ( Paragraph 134 teaches “Links between report setting and resource setting are configured by an agreed CSI measurement configuration.”. The UE performs CSI-RS measurement and reporting based on this configuration and paragraph 134 teaches this is for “beam management”.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE, network node or methods of Kwak in view of Frenne with the teachings of Kang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 6, 15, 23 and 29, Kwak in view of Frenne and further in view of Kang discloses the UE of claim 5, network node of claim 14 and methods of claims 22 and 28 as set forth above. Note that Kang further teaches wherein the selected configuration is mapped to the second configuration (Paragraph 134 teaches “Links between report setting and resource setting are configured by an agreed CSI measurement configuration.”. The UE performs CSI-RS measurement and reporting based on this configuration and paragraph 134 teaches this is for “beam management”.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE, network node or methods of Kwak in view of Frenne with the teachings of Kang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
.RE claims 7, 16 and 30, Kwak in view of Frenne and further in view of Kang discloses the UE of claim 5, network node of claim 14 and methods of claim 28 as set forth above. Note that Kang further teaches wherein the selected configuration is mapped to the second configuration (Paragraph 134 teaches “Links between report setting and resource setting are configured by an agreed CSI measurement configuration.”. The UE performs CSI-RS measurement and reporting based on this configuration and paragraph 134 teaches this is for “beam management”.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE, network node or method of Kwak in view of Frenne with the teachings of Kang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 8 and 17, Kwak in view of Frenne and further in view of Kang discloses the UE of claim 5 and network node of claim 14 as set forth above. Note that Kang further teaches wherein the one or more configurations include multiple configurations, and wherein the second configuration is mapped to the multiple configurations (Paragraph 134 teaches “Links between report setting and resource setting are configured by an agreed CSI measurement configuration.”. The UE performs CSI-RS measurement and reporting based on this configuration and paragraph 134 teaches this is for “beam management”.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the methods of Kwak in view of Frenne with the teachings of Kang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 9 and 18, Kwak in view of Frenne and further in view of Kang discloses the UE of claim 5 and network node of claim 14 as set forth above. Note that Kang further teaches wherein the at least one processor is further operable to cause the UE to receive information indicating a mapping between the selected configuration and the second configuration (Paragraph 134 teaches “Links between report setting and resource setting are configured by an agreed CSI measurement configuration.”. The UE performs CSI-RS measurement and reporting based on this configuration and paragraph 134 teaches this is for “beam management”.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the methods of Kwak in view of Frenne with the teachings of Kang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claim 24, Kwak in view of Frenne and further in view of Kang discloses the method of claim 22 as set forth above. Note that Kang further teaches receiving information indicating a mapping between the selected configuration and the second configuration (Paragraph 134 teaches “Links between report setting and resource setting are configured by an agreed CSI measurement configuration.”. The UE performs CSI-RS measurement and reporting based on this configuration and paragraph 134 teaches this is for “beam management”.).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the method of Kwak in view of Frenne with the teachings of Kang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kwak in view of Frenne and further in view of Chen et al. (US 2021/0337415, Chen hereafter).
RE claim 12, Kwak in view of Frenne discloses the network node of claim 11 as set forth above. Kwak in view of Frenne does not explicitly disclose wherein the at least one processor, to cause the UE to transmit the CSI-RS, is operable to cause the UE to transmit repetitions of a CSI-RS using a same spatial transmission filter.
However, Chen teaches wherein the at least one processor, to cause the UE to transmit the CSI-RS, is operable to cause the UE to transmit repetitions of a CSI-RS using a same spatial transmission filter (Paragraph 190-191 teaches CSI-RS transmitted by the base station via a “same spatial filter).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the network node of Kwak in view of Frenne with the teachings of Chen since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights