DETAILED ACTION
1. Claims 27-39, 157, 158, and 161-175 have been examined and are pending.
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
3. Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 27-39, 157, and 158 in the reply filed on 4/23/2026 is acknowledged.
Priority
4. Applicant’s claim for the benefit of a prior-filed application under 35 U.S.C. 119(e) or under 35 U.S.C. 120, 121, or 365(c) is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
5. The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 12/26/2023 and 6/19/2025 have been found to be in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
6. The drawings were received on 12/26/2023. These drawings are accepted.
Specification
7. The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Interpretation
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
9. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Claims 172-174 are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
10. 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.
11. Claims 28, 158, and 173 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.
a) Claim 28 recites “transmit the channel state information report comprising the number of bits indicating a single channel resource indicator, wherein the number of bits based at least in part on the number of the one or more channel measurement resource pairs”. The wherein clause appears to be incomplete since it lacks an action to the cause of the number of bits. For purposes of examination, the claim is interpreted as “transmit the channel state information report comprising the number of bits indicating a single channel resource indicator, wherein the number of bits is based at least in part on the number of the one or more channel measurement resource pairs.”
b) Claims 158 and 173 are similarly deficient as claim 28 and are therefore also rejected. The same interpretation is applied to claims 158 and 173 as it is for claim 28.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
15. 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.
16. Claims 27, 28, 39, 157, 158, 171-173, and 175 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over United States Patent Application Publication 2024/0014985 A1 to Hindy et al. (hereinafter “Hindy”) in view of United States Patent Application Publication 2025/0080186 A1 to Nilsson et al. (hereinafter “Nilsson”).
Regarding Claim 27, Hindy discloses a user equipment (UE) (Hindy: Figure 2 with [0043]), comprising:
one or more processors (Hindy: Figure 2, element 202);
one or more memories coupled with the one or more processors (Hindy: Figure 2, element 204); and
instructions stored in the one or more memories and executable by the one or more processors (Hindy: [0044]) to cause the UE to:
receive control signaling indicating a first subset of channel measurement resources in a first channel measurement resource group for single transmission reception point channel measurement associated with a first transmission reception point, a second subset of channel measurement resources in a second channel measurement resource group for single transmission reception point channel measurement associated with a second transmission reception point, and one or more channel measurement resource pairs comprising channel measurement resources from each of the first channel measurement resource group and the second channel measurement resource group for joint transmission reception point channel measurement (Hindy: [0074] – disclosed is an embodiment in which the UE is operable to receive two single TRPs and a joint TRP that are mapped to a CSI sub-report. In [0063], Hindy explains that the UE may be further operable to perform CSI reporting based on channel measurement reporting (CMR) that allows sharing of single TRP and multi-TRP (or, joint) CSI reporting. And in [0065], Hindy further provides that “…a UE configured with multi-TRP transmission may be configured with a CSI reporting setting (e.g., CSI-ReportConfig) that includes a higher-layer parameter that triggers a set of N CMR pairs corresponding to CMRs associated with joint transmission from the two TRPs (e.g., nCMR-Pairs) corresponding to the two TRPs.”. That is, the UE receives control signaling comprising information related to a CMR group of a first single TRP and a second single TRP, as well as CMR pairs corresponding to CMRs associated with a joint transmission of the two TRPs. This feature of reporting on CMR pairs is further disclosed in [0069] and [0132], in accordance with the resource configuration received.);
monitor the first subset of channel measurement resources, the second subset of channel measurement resources, and the one or more channel measurement resource pairs to generate a plurality of measurements (Hindy: [0063], [0069] – the UE is configured to perform measurements on both the single TRP and multi-TRP transmissions.).
Although Hindy discloses reporting bits of precoding matrix indicators (PMI), rank indicators (RI), and channel quality indicators (CQI) (Hindy: [0078]), Hindy does not expressly disclose transmit a channel state information report comprising a number of bits indicating one or more channel resource indicators associated with at least one of the plurality of measurements, wherein the number of bits is based at least in part on a number of the one or more channel measurement resource pairs.
However, this feature cannot be considered new or novel in the presence of Nilsson. Nilsson is similarly concerned with CSI reporting of joint-TRP (Nilsson: [0071-0072]). Nilsson further discloses transmit a channel state information report comprising a number of bits indicating one or more channel resource indicators associated with at least one of the plurality of measurements, wherein the number of bits is based at least in part on a number of the one or more channel measurement resource pairs (Nilsson: [0063], [0252] – corresponds to a CSI report comprising at least a CSI-RS resource indicator (CRI), wherein TRP and associated measurements includes a CRI bit size that depends “on the corresponding number of either valid CMR pairs for NCJT measurement hypothesis or valid CMRs for single-TRP measurement hypotheses”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the CSI report of Hindy in view of the CSI report of Nilsson to identify the number of bits for a CRI based on CMR pairs for the reasons of improving control efficiency by reducing the number of bits communicated (Nilsson: [0053]).
Regarding Claim 28, the combination of Hindy and Nilsson discloses the UE of claim 27, wherein Nilsson further discloses the instructions to transmit the channel state information report are further executable by the one or more processors to cause the UE to:
transmit the channel state information report comprising the number of bits
indicating a single channel resource indicator (Nilsson: [0073] – the CRI field (number of bits) may be for a single CRI.), wherein the number of bits [[is]] (Examiner) based at least in part on the number of the one or more channel measurement resource pairs (Nilsson: [0063], [0252] – corresponds to a CSI report comprising at least a CSI-RS resource indicator (CRI), wherein TRP and associated measurements includes a CRI bit size that depends “on the corresponding number of either valid CMR pairs for NCJT measurement hypothesis or valid CMRs for single-TRP measurement hypotheses”.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the CSI report of Hindy in view of the CSI report of Nilsson to identify the number of bits for a CRI based on CMR pairs for the reasons of improving control efficiency by reducing the number of bits communicated (Nilsson: [0053]).
Regarding Claim 39, the combination of Hindy and Nilsson discloses the UE of claim 27, wherein a number of channel resource indicators within the channel state information report associated with one of the first transmission reception point or the second transmission reception point is zero, one, or two (Hindy: [0113] – in an embodiment, a CRI quantity may be indicated. As an example, the CRI quantity is zero. Further Nilsson describes the CRI value may be reported as part of the CSI, wherein the CSI is associated with a CSI-RS resource set. In context with respect to one or more TRPs, Nilsson describes in at least [0048-0051] that with two TRPs, “…a WD is configured with a CSI process with two NZP CSI-RS resources, one for each TRP, and one interference measurement resource”, wherein the CRI may have a value of 0, 1, or 2. Although Hindy describes CRI as a CSI-RS resource index, and Nilsson describes CRI as a CSI-RS resource indicator, the Examiner construes the two as being synonymous with one another.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention (AIA ) to modify the CSI report of Hindy in view of the CSI report of Nilsson to identify the number of CRIs associated with one or more TRPs for the reasons of improving control efficiency by reducing the number of bits communicated (Nilsson: [0053]).
Claims 157, 158, and 171, directed to a method embodiment of claims 27, 28, and 39, recite similar features as claims 27, 28, and 39, respectively, and are therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claims 27, 28, and 39. Please see above rejections of claims 27, 28, and 39.
Claims 172 and 173, directed to an apparatus embodiment of claims 27 and 28 (comprising “means for” language) recite similar features as claims 27 and 28, respectively, and are therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claims 27 and 28. Please see above rejections of claims 27 and 28. Hindy discloses the apparatus as a user equipment, or wireless/remote device, in at least Figure 2 with [0043]. The algorithm to perform the limitations recited in claims 172 and 173 is described by Hindy in at least Figures 4-10.
Claim 175, directed to an article of manufacture embodiment of claim 27, recites similar features as claim 27 and is therefore rejected upon the same grounds as claim 27. Please see above rejection of claim 27. Hindy discloses the article of manufacture as a non-transitory computer-readable medium in at least [0024-0025].
Allowable Subject Matter
17. Claims 29-38, 161-170, and 174 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
18. Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
19. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV whose telephone number is (571)270-7163. The examiner can normally be reached M, T, R, F 5:00 AM-5:00 PM, W 5:00 AM-3:00 PM (EDT).
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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 H. ELLIOTT IV
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2474
/BENJAMIN H ELLIOTT IV/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474 May 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights