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 Amendment filed 12/23/2025 has been entered. Claims 1, 16, 25, 28, and 29 have been amended. Claim 11 has been cancelled. Claims 7-9, 14-15, 23-24, 26-27, and 30-32 are previously cancelled. Claims 1-6, 10, 12-13, 16-22, 25, and 28-29 are pending in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Main Argument
Applicant argues “Cavaliere et al., (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2016/0127037A1, hereinafter referred to as "Cavaliere") does not cure the deficiencies of Liu. Cavaliere was only cited as disclosing ‘the decoder output comprising an indication of a number of iterations that were needed during a decoding procedure; and an indication of a decoding margin during the decoding procedure’. Cavaliere was not cited as disclosing, and does not disclose, ‘the decoder output comprising at least one of an indication of a number of soft value changes during the decoding procedure and an indication of a number of bits that were flipped during the decoding procedure’ as recited in amended independent Claims 1, 16, 25, 28 and 29.”
Reply
The examiner respectfully disagrees.
In at least paragraphs [0059-0062] and [0068-0069], Cavaliere teaches that output is taken from the output decoder. A determination unit is used to determine the SNR (directly tied to link quality). The determination unit is configured to count iteration parameters, which may include a count of bits for which there is a difference in the most likely value of a bit. In at least paragraph [0063], Cavaliere further teaches that a sign change of the LLR for a bit from positive to negative or negative to positive (bit flipping) may be counted as an error indicating event. The number count of error indicating events may be used as an iteration parameter to determine the SNR which is directly tied to the link quality.
Therefore, Liu and Cavaliere teach the claimed feature of “determining the link quality measurement comprising determining the link quality measurement based on decoder output, the decoder output comprising at least one of an indication of a number of soft value changes during the decoding procedure and an indication of a number of bits that were flipped during the decoding procedure.”
Applicant is reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 10, 16-19, 25, and 28-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (US 20180270808 A1), hereinafter Liu, in view of Cavaliere et al. (US 20160127037), hereinafter Cavaliere.
For claim 1,
Liu teaches a method of operating a communication device in a communications network that includes a network node, the method comprising ([Abstract] and [0002] communication technology including a terminal and base station (network node)):
obtaining a plurality of channel state information, CSI, reporting configurations ([Abstract], [0005-0006] configuration information is sent and received, [0010], [0092] a plurality CSI processes corresponding to a plurality of CSI modes);
determining a link quality measurement using CSI resources associated with the plurality of CSI reporting configurations ([0023-0024] a CSI is selected for N CSI processes and quality measurement done on the basis of signal reference resource corresponding to the CSI process);
responsive to determining the link quality measurement, determining a CSI reporting configuration to be used in communicating CSI with the network node from the plurality of CSI reporting configurations based on the link quality measurement ([0025] CSI process is selected based on quality measurement result corresponding to the CSI process);
and responsive to determining the CSI reporting configuration, transmitting information associated with the CSI reporting configuration to the network node ([FIG. 2] and [0014] sending CSI corresponding to CSI process based on the CSI reporting mode).
Liu does not explicitly teach, however Cavaliere teaches determining the link quality measurement comprising determining the link quality measurement based on decoder output, the decoder output comprising at least one of an indication of a number of soft value changes during the decoding procedure and an indication of a number of bits that were flipped during the decoding procedure ([At least 0059-0063 and 0068-0069], [FIG. 3b] output is taken from the output decoder. A determination unit is used to determine the SNR (directly tied to link quality). The determination unit is configured to count iteration parameters, which may include a count of bits for which there is a difference in the most likely value of a bit. In at least paragraph [0063], Cavaliere further teaches that a sign change of the LLR for a bit from positive to negative or negative to positive (bit flipping) may be counted as an error indicating event. The number count of error indicating events may be used as an iteration parameter to determine the SNR which is directly tied to the link quality.);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Liu for determining a link quality measurement with the method of Cavaliere for the determination being based on a decoder and an indication of the number of flipped bits during the decoding process to monitor power consumption due to the iterative nature of the decoding process and more accurately determine the link quality to reduce transmission quality degradation and transmission failure.
For claim 2, Liu and Cavaliere teach claim 1.
Liu further teaches wherein the plurality of CSI reporting configurations comprises at least one of: a wide-band CSI reporting configuration ([0093] wideband PMI and CQI corresponding to a CSI reporting mode);
For claim 3, Liu and Cavaliere teach claim 1.
Liu further teaches wherein obtaining the plurality of CSI reporting configurations comprises: receiving at least a portion of the plurality of CSI reporting configurations from the network node ([Abstract], [0005-0006], [0010], [0092] terminal selects CSI process from the plurality of configurations sent by the base station (network node)).
For claim 4, Liu and Cavaliere teach claim 1.
Liu further teaches transmitting an indicator of the CSI reporting configuration to the network node ([0090] first notification message is sent to the base station indicating the CSI reporting mode used).
For claim 5, Liu and Cavaliere teach claim 1.
Liu further teaches transmitting a CSI report to the network node based on the CSI reporting configuration ([FIG. 2] and [0014] sending CSI corresponding to CSI process based on the CSI reporting mode).
For claim 10, Liu and Cavaliere teach claim 1.
Liu further teaches wherein determining the link quality measurement comprises: measuring the link quality measurement associated with a reference signal including at least one of: a demodulation reference signal, DMRS ([0024] quality measurement done on the basis of signal reference resource corresponding to the CSI process, and [0004] DMRS process includes measurement based on configuration information sent by the base station);
For claim 16,
Liu teaches a method of operating a network node in a communications network, the method comprising ([Abstract] and [0002] communication technology including a terminal and base station (network node)):
transmitting a plurality of channel state information, CSI, reporting configurations to a communication device ([Abstract], [0005-0006], [0010], [0092] terminal selects CSI process from the plurality of configurations sent by the base station (network node));
and receiving information associated with a CSI reporting configuration of the plurality of CSI reporting configurations from the communication device ([FIG. 2], [0014], and [0025] terminal sends, based on the CSI reporting mode, CSI corresponding to the CSI process from the plurality of CSI processes).
Liu does not explicitly teach, however Cavaliere teaches the CSI reporting configuration determined by the communications device determining a link quality measurement based on a decoder output, the decoder output comprising at least one of an indication of a number of soft value changes during a decoding procedure and an indication of a number of bits that were flipped during the decoding procedure ([At least 0059-0063 and 0068-0069], [FIG. 3b] output is taken from the output decoder. A determination unit is used to determine the SNR (directly tied to link quality). The determination unit is configured to count iteration parameters, which may include a count of bits for which there is a difference in the most likely value of a bit. In at least paragraph [0063], Cavaliere further teaches that a sign change of the LLR for a bit from positive to negative or negative to positive (bit flipping) may be counted as an error indicating event. The number count of error indicating events may be used as an iteration parameter to determine the SNR which is directly tied to the link quality. SNR is directly related to CSI and is a key component of CSI reporting configuration.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Liu for transmitting and receiving CSI reporting configuration information with the method of Cavaliere for the CSI reporting configuration being determined based on a decoder output and an indication of the number of flipped bits during the decoding process to monitor power consumption due to the iterative nature of the decoding process and more accurately determine the link quality to reduce transmission quality degradation and transmission failure.
For claims [17, 18, and 19], they are rejected on the same basis as claims [2, 4, and 5], respectively.
For claims [25, 28] and 29, they are rejected on the same basis as claims [1] and 16, respectively, with the additional limitations of processing circuitry, memory coupled to the processing circuitry and instructions stored therein that are executable by the processing circuitry ([FIGs. 4B, 5B], [0165], and [0183-0185] processor, memory and instructions stored in memory that are executable by the processor).
Claim(s) 12, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, in view of Cavaliere, and further in view of Han et al. (US 20140036664 A1), hereinafter Han.
For claim 12, Liu and Cavaliere teach claim 1.
Liu and Cavaliere do not teach wherein the communications network is a new radio, NR, network, and wherein the network node is a radio access network, RAN, node.
However, Han teaches wherein the communications network is a new radio, NR, network, and wherein the network node is a radio access network, RAN, node ([0090] base station can be an eNB, meaning that the system is an NR system and the base station can be a RAN node).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Liu and Cavaliere for operating a communication system of a terminal and base station with the method of Han for the base station being an eNB and the communication system being a RAN network because this is a common communication method known in the art.
For claim 21, is rejected on the same basis as claim 12.
Claim(s) 6, 13, 20, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu, in view of Cavaliere, and further in view of Zhou et al. (US 2020038103 A1), hereinafter Zhou.
For claim 6, Liu and Cavaliere teach claim 5.
Liu and Cavaliere do not teach wherein transmitting the information further comprises: receiving a request from the network node for the CSI report;
and transmitting the CSI report in response to receiving the request;
However, Zhou teaches teach wherein transmitting the information further comprises: receiving a request from the network node for the CSI report ([0502] CSI report requested by the base station (network node));
and transmitting the CSI report in response to receiving the request ([0379] CSI report is transmitted in response to activation command triggered by request for CSI report);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Liu and Cavaliere for transmitting a CSI report with the method of Zhou for transmitting a CSI report based on a CSI report request from the base station to reduce the chance of delaying channel-sensitive scheduling and mitigate a delay in acquiring CSI (Zhou [0079]).
For claim 13, Liu and Cavaliere teach claim 1.
Liu and Cavaliere do not teach transmitting a first message to the network node, the first message indicating that the communication device is capable of determining the CSI reporting configuration; and
receiving a second message from the network node, the second message instructing the communication device to handle determination of the CSI reporting configuration from the plurality of CSI configurations.
However, Zhou teaches transmitting a first message to the network node, the first message indicating that the communication device is capable of determining the CSI reporting configuration ([FIGs. 35 and 38] and [0517] capability message is sent to the base station (network node) indicating the terminal may configure CSI processes); and
receiving a second message from the network node, the second message instructing the communication device to handle determination of the CSI reporting configuration from the plurality of CSI configurations ([0379] terminal receives activation message from the base station activating CSI reporting processes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Liu and Cavaliere for CSI reporting in a communication system with the method of Zhou for transmitting a message indicating the device can determine CSI reporting configurations and receiving a message instructing the device to determine CSI reporting configuration from the plurality of configurations to reduce the chance of delaying channel-sensitive scheduling and mitigate a delay in acquiring CSI (Zhou [0079]).
For claims [20 and 22], they are rejected on the same basis as claims [6 and 13], respectively.
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 Benjamin T. Ranew whose telephone number is (571)272-2746. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM 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, Ayman Abaza can be reached at (571) 270-0422. 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.
/BENJAMIN T. RANEW/Examiner, Art Unit 2465
/AYMAN A ABAZA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465