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 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 8 and 9 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 enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention.
Regarding claims 8 and 9, for example see claim 8, lines 3-10, the claims recite based on first indication and second indication, wherein, the first indication is provided in SIB; the second indication is tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon; and determining the CSI-RS resources includes: determining four CSI-RS resources in two consecutive slots, with two CSI-RS resources in each slot, in case that (i) a value of the first indication is a first value and (ii) symbols of resources in a second slot of the two consecutive slots are indicated as downlink according to the second indication; and determining two CSI-RS resources in a slot in case that the value of the first indication is a second value. The claims are directed towards a combination of two separate and distinct embodiments which is not recited in the specification, as the specification only recites separate and distinct embodiments.
The specification recites, a first embodiment, see Figure 1 and page 12, line 7 to page 13, line 5, “The network may configure a CSI-RS resource parameter by means of an SIB system information block message, and the CSI-RS resource parameter is used to configure a user in an idle or RRC_inactive state to receive a CSI-RS signal. For example, the network transmits several CSI-RS signal configuration parameters by means of a system broadcast message. Each group of configuration parameters may be referred to as a configuration group. The terminal may acquire at least one CSI-RS resource parameter according to each configuration group parameter. For example, at least one of parameters such as a time-frequency location, a bandwidth, density, and a reference signal used to receive a CSI-RS signal can be determined.”
The specification recites, a second embodiment, see Figure 5, page 22, line 32 to page 23, line 17, “In a network, a terminal may determine, according to a tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon parameter configured by a system, that a symbol state in a slot is one of uplink, downlink, or flexible. . . . The terminal determines a CSI-RS resource in a slot n and a symbol l according to the slot symbol state. When the terminal determines, according to a system information configuration, that the same symbol l in a consecutive next slot n+1 is downlink, the terminal determines a CSI-RS resource in the consecutive next slot n+1. When the terminal determines, according to the system information configuration, that the same symbol l in a consecutive next slot n+1 is uplink, the terminal should not assume that a valid CSI-RS resource is present for transmission of a CSI-RS signal in a next slot consecutive to a slot determined by a configuration parameter. The terminal determines that the CSI-RS is not transmitted in the consecutive next slot.” The specification does not recite an embodiment to determine the CSI-RS resource based on the first and second indication, in which the first indication is provided by the SIB and the second indication is provided by the tdd-UL-DL-Configuration and determining four CSI-RS resources in two consecutive slots based on the values of the first and second indications. As well as, determining two CSI-RS resources in a slot in a case that the first indication is a second value based upon the first and second indications.
The specification recites two separate embodiments, one according to SIB information and a second according to tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon information. The specification does not recite the combination of the two (SIB and tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon) indications to determine CSI-RS resources. The specification recites a general use of multiple indications, see page 22, lines 15-18, “Optionally, the network indication is a higher-layer parameter indication. For example, the indication of the network is broadcast in an SIB together with other configuration group parameters, and the terminal may determine, according to the received indication, a CSI-RS resource determined by each group of configuration parameters in one or two consecutive slots.” However, the specification merely recites “an SIB together with other configuration group parameters” in a general context with the embodiment featured in Figure 4, unrelated to the claimed first and second indications, and makes no mention of UL-DL configuration in general or otherwise until a separate and distinct embodiment featured in Figure 5, which also does not comprise a first and second indications as claimed. A person of ordinary skill in the art could not make and/or use the claimed invention as specification only recites a general concept of “an SIB together with other configuration group parameters” and the claims in and of themselves cannot be enabling because they do not provide sufficient information to allow a skilled individual to make and use the invention without undue experimentation (for example, the claimed values of the first and second indications are undefined and manner in which the values affect the determination is undefined as well).
The claimed first and second indications were not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. A person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention could not make and/or use the invention as claimed as the specification does not recite an embodiment comprising the SIB together with the tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon information to determine the CSI-RS resources, in consecutive slots, according to values of the SIB and UL-DL configuration. The specification only recites a general concept of “an SIB together with other configuration group parameters”. A proper prior art search and consideration cannot be completed at this time in light of the claimed subject matter’s enablement dilemma. Appropriate clarification and correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Claims 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) a mental process, because the claims are interpreted as encompassing nothing other than pure mental steps (and thus falling within an abstract idea grouping) because the claims do not include any limitations requiring computer implementation. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because described improvement to the computer system is speculative. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claims merely apply the abstract idea.
The claimed invention is not directed to patent eligible subject matter. Based upon consideration of all of the relevant factors with respect to the claim as a whole, claim(s) 8 and 9 are determined to be directed to an abstract idea. The rationale for this determination is explained as followed. The claim is directed to an abstract idea, which is excluded from eligibility based on a concern that monopolization of basic tools of scientific and technological work might impede innovation more than it would promote it. The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of mental processes. The claims are directed towards a process and machine. The claims are directed to an abstract idea and the recited additional elements do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, because the specification does not disclose a concrete improvement in technology. The claim considered as a whole does not qualify because limitations do not amount to "significantly more" than the use of the abstract idea itself. The invention is directed towards the abstract idea of mental processes related to CSI-RS resource determination. The claim recites the step of determining CSI-RS resources, which is an act of evaluating information that can be practically performed in the human mind. Thus, this step is an abstract idea in the “mental process” grouping. The claims recite mental processes because they can be practically performed in the human mind, and the claims do not recite a machine performing a determination in combination with signal/data analysis or the manipulation of data. The claims recite a mental process when they contain limitations that can practically be performed in the human mind, including for example, observations, evaluations, judgments, and opinions even when generally tied towards a machine. In this particular case, the claims recite, “determining CSI-RS resources when the UE is in RRC_IDLE or RRC_Inactive based on first indication and second indication (mental process generally tied to a machine, UE/using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process) . . . the first indication is provided in SIB . . . the second indication is tdd-UL-DL-ConfigurationCommon (mental process generally tied to a machine and limitations do not recite the manner in which the indications are provided and determined/analyzed - using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process) . . . determining the CSI-RS resource includes (mental process generally tied to a machine, UE/using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process) . . . . In this manner, the claim is directed towards the mental process of determining the CSI-RS resources as generally tied towards a machine (UE)/using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process as the claim limitations are not recited as being performed by a system or machine comprising signal/data analysis or the manipulation of data, but rather the mental process of determining CSI-RS resources according to information generally tied towards a machine, UE/using a computer as a tool to perform a mental process (the claim does not recite a system or machine transmitting/receiving/analyzing the indications, such as the SIB and UL-DL configuration information, and performing a determination according to the transmitted/received/analyzed indications). Note, claim 9 recites an apparatus comprising a memory and a processor; however, the claim is generally tied towards a machine as a tool to perform a mental process as the limitations are not recited as comprising signal/data analysis or the manipulation of data, but rather the mental process tied towards a general machine.
The claims do not recite limitations directed to improvements to another technology or technical field; improvements to the functioning of the computer itself; or meaningful limitations beyond generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. There are no meaningful limitations in the claim that transform the exception into a patent eligible application such that the claim amounts to significantly more than the exception itself rendering the claim non-statutory subject matter. The claims are directed towards the mental process of determining CSI-RS resources. The claim does not recite an improvement to the computer system itself because the manner in which determining CSI-RS resources improves the computer system is not recited within the claim. The claim does not recite the improvement to the system because, under a broadest reasonable interpretation, the meaning and purpose of the determination does not affect the system. In this manner, the claim is directed towards the abstract idea of a mental process for determining CSI-RS resources without applying the determination; therefore, the claim does not recite a practical application.
The claim limitations both individually and as a whole do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Like Enfish, the claims are drawn to an abstract idea, however, unlike Enfish the abstract idea does not encompass an improvement to the computer system itself. The specification fails to provide details regarding the manner in which the invention of determining CSI-RS resources accomplishes the alleged improvement, like Affinity Labs. Unlike Enfish, the claimed speculative improvement does not represent a concrete improvement, but merely an instant in which an improvement may or may not be realized. The step to administer the determination is not particular, and does not even apply the exception in a generic way, i.e. the recited transmission step. The claim lacks even an administration step and does not integrate the exception into a practical application.
The claim limitations do not integrate the judicial exception by implementing the judicial exception with, or using a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim, because the claim is directed towards a generic computer (UE). The claim does not integrate the judicial exception by effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing, because no such transformation is present. The limitations considered individually and as a whole do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application nor do the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself, and the claims do not even merely recite adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; apply it; and generally link the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment. Therefore, the claim is directed towards non-statutory subject matter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Noh et al. (US 2022/0256458 A1) - a terminal transmits capability information about power saving of the terminal to a base station, determines whether to apply a power saving interval based on resource allocation information received from the base station, determines a channel estimation method and a channel state information generation method based on the determining to apply the power saving interval, and provides, to the base station, channel state information obtained based on the determined channel estimation method and channel state information generation method.
Go et al. (US 2024/0204953 A1) - receiving, from a base station, first configuration information related to a CSI report and second configuration information related to a CSI resource, wherein the second configuration information includes information on M (M is a natural number) CSI resource sets associated with the first configuration information on the basis of a group-based report being configured by the first configuration information.
Takahashi et al. (US 2021/0321462 A1) - a receiver that receives a radio resource control (RRC) reconfiguration message including comprising information regarding reconfiguration with synchronization; and a processor that monitors a quasi co-location of a demodulation reference signal antenna port for a downlink control channel in a control resource set based on information regarding random access resources within the information regarding the reconfiguration with synchronization.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DONALD L MILLS whose telephone number is (571)272-3094. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday from 9-5 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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 571-272-3927. 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.
DONALD L. MILLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2462
/Donald L Mills/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462