DETAILED ACTION
Claim(s) 1-20 are presented for examination.
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 .
Priority
As required by M.P.E.P.201.14(c), acknowledgement is made to applicant’s claim for priority based on application(s) FI20235287 submitted on March 10th, 2023.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains a legal phraseology “comprising …” in line 11. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as "means" and "said," should be avoided. Correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Drawings
New corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in this application because figure(s) 8 and 9 are illegible. Applicant is advised to employ the services of a competent patent draftsperson outside the Office, as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office no longer prepares new drawings. The corrected drawings are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The requirement for corrected drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “radio resource control, RRC …” in line 5. Since the limitation is being introduced for a first time, it is suggested to put the acronym in parenthesis (i.e., radio resource control (RRC)).
Claim 12 is also being objected for being dependent on an objected base claim as set forth above.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 U.S.C. § 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 7, 10-13, 15, 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Luo et al. (US 2020/0068421 A1) hereinafter “Luo” in view of DA SILVA et al. (US 2021/0297129 A1) hereinafter “DA SILVA”.
Regarding Claims 1 and 19,
Luo discloses an apparatus [see fig. 6, pg. 8, ¶125 lines 1-6, a measurement parameter sending apparatus or UE] comprising:
at least one processor [see fig. 6, pg. 8, ¶125 lines 1-6, a digital signal processor (DSP)]; and
at least one memory including computer program code [see fig. 6, pg. 8, ¶125 lines 1-6, a memory configured to store a program], the at least one memory and computer program code configured to [see fig. 6, pg. 8, ¶125 lines 1-6, the memory and the stored program implemented to], with the at least one processor [see fig. 6, pg. 8, ¶125 lines 1-6, in addition to the digital signal processor (DSP)], cause the apparatus to perform [see fig. 6, pg. 8, ¶125 lines 1-6, trigger the measurement parameter sending apparatus or UE to execute a method of]:
performing cell-specific radio measurements for a plurality of cells or beam-specific radio measurements for a plurality of transmit beams [see fig. 3: Step “103”, pg. 5, ¶58 lines 1-3, the user equipment measures the received measurement signals corresponding to the plurality of beams to obtain a beam measurement parameter];
evaluating correlation between results of the cell-specific or beam-specific radio measurements [see fig. 3: Step “104”, pg. 6, ¶68 lines 1-3, the user equipment generates a cell-level measurement parameter (i.e. a cell-level-RSRP) based on the beam measurement parameter];
filtering the results of the cell-specific or beam-specific radio measurements at least to remove repetitions of results satisfying the one or more pre-defined correlation conditions [see fig. 3: Step “105”, pg. 6, ¶74 lines 1-4; ¶77 lines 1-7, before sending the cell-level-RSRP, the user equipment performs filtering processing on the cell-level-RSRP, for example, performs layer 3 filtering processing on the cell-level-RSRP]; and
transmitting [see fig. 3: Step “105”, pg. 6, ¶74 lines 1-4, the user equipment sends], to another apparatus [see fig. 3: Step “105”, pg. 6, ¶74 lines 1-4, to the network device], a measurement report comprising the filtered results of the cell-specific or beam-specific radio measurements and information on the correlation calculated for the at least one pair of cells or transmit beams [see fig. 3: Step “105”, pg. 6, ¶74 lines 1-4, the cell-level measurement parameter by using layer 3 (L3) signaling (i.e. a measurement report)].
Although Luo discloses evaluating correlation between results of the cell-specific or beam-specific radio measurements, Luo does not explicitly teach “comparing the correlation against one or more pre-defined correlation conditions”; and filtering “in response to the correlation for at least one pair of cells in the plurality of cells or for at least one pair of transmit beams in the plurality of transmit beams satisfying the one or more pre-defined correlation conditions”.
However DA SILVA discloses performing cell-specific radio measurements for a plurality of cells or beam-specific radio measurements for a plurality of transmit beams [see fig. 3B: Step “301”, pg. 7, ¶62 lines 1-23, the user equipment is configured to measure the quality of the received signal for each of the plurality of signals];
evaluating correlation between results of the cell-specific or beam-specific radio measurements [see fig. 3B: Step “101”, pg. 5, ¶49 lines 1-23; pg. 7, ¶62 lines 1-23, the measured qualities for the frequency sub-band and beam pairings are analyzed … to allow the identification of plural frequency sub-band and beam pairings for which the measured qualities are correlated, that is, where the measured qualities of the pairings share a common characteristic or attribute];
comparing the correlation against one or more pre-defined correlation conditions [see fig. 3B: Step “102”, pg. 5, ¶50 lines 1-14; pg. 7, ¶62 lines 1-23, following the identification of plural frequency sub-band and beam pairings that are correlated with one another, the periodicity of the received signal quality analysis process for each of the plural frequency sub-band and beam pairings is evaluated]; and
in response to the correlation for at least one pair of cells in the plurality of cells or for at least one pair of transmit beams in the plurality of transmit beams satisfying the one or more pre-defined correlation conditions [see fig. 3B: Step “103”, pg. 5, ¶52 lines 1-10; pg. 7, ¶62 lines 1-23, when the evaluation has been performed, it is determined whether or not to adjust the periodicity of the analysis process for each of the pairings for which the received signal quality is correlated], filtering the results of the cell-specific or beam-specific radio measurements at least to remove repetitions of results satisfying the one or more pre-defined correlation conditions [see fig. 3B: Step “103”, pg. 6, ¶53 lines 1-24; pg. 7, ¶62 lines 1-23, the adjustment of the periodicity for a given pairing comprises either increasing or reducing the periodicity of the process for, or even stopping the process for, a given pairing] and transmitting [see fig. 3B: Step “302”, pg. 7, ¶62 lines 1-23, the user equipment sends (transmits)], to another apparatus [see fig. 3B: Step “302”, pg. 7, ¶62 lines 1-23, to the base station], a measurement report comprising the filtered results of the cell-specific or beam-specific radio measurements and information on the correlation calculated for the at least one pair of cells or transmit beams [see fig. 3B: Step “302”, pg. 7, ¶62 lines 1-23, the plural frequency sub-band and beam pairings for which the received signal quality is correlated, and the results of the determination as to whether or not to adjust the periodicity].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “comparing the correlation against one or more pre-defined correlation conditions”; and “in response to the correlation for at least one pair of cells in the plurality of cells or for at least one pair of transmit beams in the plurality of transmit beams satisfying the one or more pre-defined correlation conditions”, filtering the results of the cell-specific or beam-specific radio measurements as taught by DA SILVA in the system of Luo to facilitate more efficient channel quality reporting in a wireless communication system that utilizes beamforming [see DA SILVA, pg. 2, ¶13 lines 1-3].
Regarding Claim 2,
Luo discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Luo does not explicitly teach the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to perform: “in response to the correlation between all pairs of cells in the plurality of cells or all pairs of transmit beams in the plurality of transmit beams failing to satisfy the one or more pre-defined correlation conditions, transmitting a measurement report comprising the results of the radio measurements without filtering to said another apparatus”; or “in response to the correlation between all pairs of cells in the plurality of cells or all pairs of transmit beams in the plurality of transmit beams failing to satisfy the one or more pre-defined correlation conditions, transmitting a measurement report comprising the results of the radio measurements without filtering and information on the correlation calculated for all pairs of cells in plurality of cells or all pairs of beams in the plurality of transmit beams to said another apparatus”.
However DA SILVA discloses in response to the correlation between all pairs of cells in the plurality of cells or all pairs of transmit beams in the plurality of transmit beams failing to satisfy the one or more pre-defined correlation conditions [see fig. 3B: Step “103”, pg. 5, ¶52 lines 1-10; pg. 7, ¶62 lines 1-23, when the evaluation has been performed, it is determined whether or not to adjust the periodicity of the analysis process for each of the pairings for which the received signal quality is correlated], transmitting a measurement report comprising the results of the radio measurements without filtering to said another apparatus [see fig. 3B: Step “302”, pg. 7, ¶62 lines 1-23, the user equipment sends (transmits) to the base station the plural frequency sub-band and beam pairings for which the received signal quality is correlated, and the results of the determination as to whether or not to adjust the periodicity].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “in response to the correlation between all pairs of cells in the plurality of cells or all pairs of transmit beams in the plurality of transmit beams failing to satisfy the one or more pre-defined correlation conditions, transmitting a measurement report comprising the results of the radio measurements without filtering to said another apparatus”; or “in response to the correlation between all pairs of cells in the plurality of cells or all pairs of transmit beams in the plurality of transmit beams failing to satisfy the one or more pre-defined correlation conditions, transmitting a measurement report comprising the results of the radio measurements without filtering and information on the correlation calculated for all pairs of cells in plurality of cells or all pairs of beams in the plurality of transmit beams to said another apparatus” as taught by DA SILVA in the system of Luo for the same motivation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 3,
Luo discloses the apparatus of claim 1.
Luo does not explicitly teach “the one or more pre-defined correlation conditions are one or more first pre-defined correlation conditions” and the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to, following the transmitting: “repeat the performing of the cell-specific or beam-specific radio measurements, the evaluating or the causing of the evaluation, the comparing, the filtering and the transmitting until the correlation for all pairs of cells in the plurality of cells or for all pairs of beams in the plurality of transmit beams fail to satisfy one or more second pre-defined correlation conditions, the one or more second pre-defined correlation conditions being less stringent compared to the one or more first pre-defined correlation conditions”.
However DA SILVA discloses the one or more pre-defined correlation conditions are one or more first pre-defined correlation conditions [see fig. 3B: Step “103”, pg. 5, ¶52 lines 1-10; pg. 7, ¶62 lines 1-23, when the evaluation has been performed, it is determined whether or not to adjust the periodicity of the analysis process for each of the pairings for which the received signal quality is correlated] and following the transmitting [see fig. 3B: Step “302”, pg. 7, ¶62 lines 1-23, upon sending the plural frequency sub-band and beam pairings for which the received signal quality is correlated, and the results of the determination as to whether or not to adjust the periodicity]:
repeat the performing of the cell-specific or beam-specific radio measurements [see fig. 3B: Step “301”, pg. 7, ¶62 lines 1-23, the user equipment is configured to measure the quality of the received signal for each of the plurality of signals], the evaluating or the causing of the evaluation [see fig. 3B: Step “101”, pg. 5, ¶49 lines 1-23; pg. 7, ¶62 lines 1-23, the measured qualities for the frequency sub-band and beam pairings are analyzed … to allow the identification of plural frequency sub-band and beam pairings for which the measured qualities are correlated, that is, where the measured qualities of the pairings share a common characteristic or attribute], the comparing [see fig. 3B: Step “102”, pg. 5, ¶50 lines 1-14; pg. 7, ¶62 lines 1-23, following the identification of plural frequency sub-band and beam pairings that are correlated with one another, the periodicity of the received signal quality analysis process for each of the plural frequency sub-band and beam pairings is evaluated], the filtering and the transmitting until the correlation for all pairs of cells in the plurality of cells or for all pairs of beams in the plurality of transmit beams fail to satisfy one or more second pre-defined correlation conditions [see fig. 3B: Step “103”, pg. 6, ¶53 lines 1-24; pg. 7, ¶62 lines 1-23, the adjustment of the periodicity for a given pairing comprises either increasing or reducing the periodicity of the process for, or even stopping the process for, a given pairing], the one or more second pre-defined correlation conditions being less stringent compared to the one or more first pre-defined correlation conditions [see fig. 3B: Step “302”, pg. 7, ¶62 lines 1-23, the plural frequency sub-band and beam pairings for which the received signal quality is correlated, and the results of the determination as to whether or not to adjust the periodicity].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide, “the one or more pre-defined correlation conditions are one or more first pre-defined correlation conditions”; and following the transmitting: “repeat the performing of the cell-specific or beam-specific radio measurements, the evaluating or the causing of the evaluation, the comparing, the filtering and the transmitting until the correlation for all pairs of cells in the plurality of cells or for all pairs of beams in the plurality of transmit beams fail to satisfy one or more second pre-defined correlation conditions, the one or more second pre-defined correlation conditions being less stringent compared to the one or more first pre-defined correlation conditions” as taught by DA SILVA in the system of Luo for the same motivation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 4,
The combined system of Luo and DA SILVA discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Luo further discloses wherein the one or more pre-defined correlation conditions comprise a pre-defined correlation threshold [see pg. 6, ¶70 lines 17-22, the network device obtains SS-block-RSRPs exceeding a preset threshold …].
Regarding Claim 6,
Luo discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Luo does not explicitly teach the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to perform: “maintaining, in the at least one memory, a trained machine-learning algorithm for evaluating correlation between results of cell-specific or beam-specific radio measurements”; and “performing the evaluating of the correlation using the trained machine-learning algorithm”.
However DA SILVA discloses maintaining, in the at least one memory, a trained machine-learning algorithm for evaluating correlation between results of cell-specific or beam-specific radio measurements [see pg. 8, ¶68 lines 25-31, the base station or user equipment includes an algorithm to determine a suitable standard deviation value based on, for example, predicted interference, base station or user equipment properties (such as remaining battery power) and so on]; and
performing the evaluating of the correlation using the trained machine-learning algorithm [see pg. 8, ¶68 lines 25-31, in particular, the standard deviation value is hard coded into the base station or user equipment, or configured by an external configuration interface].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “maintaining, in the at least one memory, a trained machine-learning algorithm for evaluating correlation between results of cell-specific or beam-specific radio measurements”; and “performing the evaluating of the correlation using the trained machine-learning algorithm” as taught by DA SILVA in the system of Luo for the same motivation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 7,
The combined system of Luo and DA SILVA discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Luo further discloses wherein the results of cell-specific or beam-specific radio measurements for each of the plurality of cells or beams comprise of [see pg. 5, ¶65 lines 13-16, the SS-block-measurement parameter includes]:
one or more values of reference signal received power [see pg. 5, ¶65 lines 13-16, at least one of parameters such as a reference signal received power (RSRP)].
Regarding Claim 10,
The combined system of Luo and DA SILVA discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Luo further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to perform the cell-specific radio measurements [see pg. 6, ¶68 lines 1-3, the user equipment generates a cell-level measurement parameter based on the beam measurement parameter], the cell-specific radio measurements being cell-specific layer-3 radio measurements [see pg. 6, ¶75 lines 1-4, the user equipment sends the cell-level measurement parameter to the network device by using layer 3 (L3) signaling] and said another apparatus is an access node [see pg. 6, ¶74 lines 1-4, the user equipment sends the cell-level measurement parameter to the network device].
Regarding Claim 11,
The combined system of Luo and DA SILVA discloses the apparatus of claim 10.
Luo further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to perform, before the performing of the cell-specific layer-3 radio measurements [see fig. 3: Step “103”, pg. 5, ¶58 lines 1-3, the user equipment measures the received measurement signals corresponding to the plurality of beams to obtain a beam measurement parameter]:
receiving a radio resource control, RRC, reconfiguration message from the access node [see fig. 3: Step “102”, pg. 5, ¶57 lines 1-5, the user equipment receives the measurement signals that correspond to the plurality of beams and that are sent by the network device], wherein the RRC reconfiguration message comprises at least information on the one or more pre-defined correlation conditions [see fig. 3: Step “102”, pg. 5, ¶59 lines 1-4, when receiving the measurement signals corresponding to the plurality of beams, the user equipment measures the measurement signals corresponding to the plurality of beams].
Regarding Claim 12,
Luo discloses the apparatus of claim 11.
Luo does not explicitly teach the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to perform, before the receiving of the RRC reconfiguration message: “performing initial cell-specific layer-3 radio measurements for a plurality of cells”; and “transmitting, to the access node, a measurement report comprising the results of the initial cell-specific layer-3 radio measurements”.
However DA SILVA discloses before the receiving of the RRC reconfiguration message [see pg. 6, ¶58 lines 1-3, receiving, at the user equipment from the base station, the plurality of signals]:
performing initial cell-specific layer-3 radio measurements for a plurality of cells [see pg. 6, ¶55 lines 1-13, where a base station is configured to perform steps S101 to S103, the user equipment: receives the signals from the base station; measures the quality of the signals]; and
transmitting [see pg. 6, ¶55 lines 1-13, and then transmits], to the access node [see pg. 6, ¶55 lines 1-13, to the base station], a measurement report comprising the results of the initial cell-specific layer-3 radio measurements [see pg. 6, ¶55 lines 1-13, the measurements such that the base station can use the measurements to perform steps S101 to S103].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide “performing initial cell-specific layer-3 radio measurements for a plurality of cells”; and “transmitting, to the access node, a measurement report comprising the results of the initial cell-specific layer-3 radio measurements” as taught by DA SILVA in the system of Luo for the same motivation as set forth in claim 1.
Regarding Claim 13,
The combined system of Luo and DA SILVA discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Luo further discloses wherein the at least one memory and the computer program code are configured, with the at least one processor, to cause the apparatus to perform the beam-specific radio measurements [see pg. 6, ¶68 lines 1-3, the user equipment generates a cell-level measurement parameter based on the beam measurement parameter], the beam-specific radio measurements being layer-1 measurements [see pg. 6, ¶75 lines 1-4, the user equipment sends the cell-level measurement parameter to the network device by using layer 3 (L3) signaling] and said another apparatus is an access node [see pg. 6, ¶74 lines 1-4, the user equipment sends the cell-level measurement parameter to the network device].
Regarding Claim 15,
The combined system of Luo and DA SILVA discloses the apparatus according to claim 1.
Luo further discloses wherein the one or more pre-defined correlation conditions are defined beam-pair-specifically [see pg. 6, ¶73 lines 1-7, there is one cell-level-RSRP, that is, the cell-level-RSRP is the optimal SS-block-RSRP of the plurality of SS-block-RSRPs corresponding to plurality of beams].
Regarding Claims 16 and 20,
Luo discloses an apparatus [see fig. 7, pg. 9, ¶130 lines 1-6, a measurement parameter receiving apparatus or network device] comprising:
at least one processor [see fig. 7, pg. 9, ¶130 lines 1-6, a digital signal processor (DSP)]; and
at least one memory including computer program code [see fig. 7, pg. 9, ¶130 lines 1-6, a memory configured to store a program], the at least one memory and computer program code configured to [see fig. 7, pg. 9, ¶130 lines 1-6, the memory and the stored program implemented to], with the at least one processor [see fig. 7, pg. 9, ¶130 lines 1-6, in addition to the digital signal processor (DSP)], cause the apparatus to perform [see fig. 7, pg. 9, ¶130 lines 1-6, trigger the measurement parameter sending apparatus or UE to execute a method of]:
receiving [see fig. 3: Step “105”, pg. 6, ¶74 lines 1-4, obtaining], from a terminal device [see fig. 3: Step “105”, pg. 6, ¶74 lines 1-4, from the user equipment], a measurement report comprising filtered results of cell-specific or beam-specific radio measurements carried out by the terminal device for a plurality of cells or for a plurality of transmit beams [see fig. 3: Step “105”, pg. 6, ¶74 lines 1-4, the cell-level measurement parameter by using layer 3 (L3) signaling (i.e. a measurement report)], respectively [see fig. 3: Step “105”, pg. 6, ¶74 lines 1-4; ¶77 lines 1-7, upon the user equipment performing filtering processing on the cell-level-RSRP, for example, the UE performs layer 3 filtering processing on the cell-level-RSRP before sending the cell-level-RSRP].
Although Luo discloses receiving a measurement report comprising filtered results of cell-specific or beam-specific radio measurements carried out by the terminal device for a plurality of cells or for a plurality of transmit beams, Luo does not explicitly teach receiving “information on a correlation between cell-specific radio measurements carried out for at least two of the plurality of cells or beam-specific radio measurements carried out for at least two of the plurality of transmit beams”, “wherein the filtered results of the cell specific or beam-specific radio measurements have been filtered at least by removing correlated results relating to at least one but not all of the at least two of the plurality of cells or transmit beams”.
However DA SILVA discloses receiving [see fig. 3A: Step “302”, pg. 7, ¶61 lines 1-20, the base station receives], from a terminal device [see fig. 3A: Step “302”, pg. 7, ¶61 lines 1-20, from the user equipment], a measurement report comprising filtered results of cell-specific or beam-specific radio measurements carried out by the terminal device for a plurality of cells or for a plurality of transmit beams [see fig. 3A: Step “302”, pg. 7, ¶61 lines 1-20, reports of the quality of the received signals for each of a plurality of signals], respectively [see fig. 3A: Step “302”, pg. 7, ¶61 lines 1-20, following the transmission of the signals], and information on a correlation between cell-specific radio measurements carried out for at least two of the plurality of cells or beam-specific radio measurements carried out for at least two of the plurality of transmit beams [see pg. 5, ¶48 lines 1-5; ¶49 lines 1-23, the qualities of the received signals are measured at the user equipment for each of the frequency sub-band and beam pairings used to transmit a signal … the measured qualities for the frequency sub-band and beam pairings are analyzed … to allow the identification of plural frequency sub-band and beam pairings for which the measured qualities are correlated, that is, where the measured qualities of the pairings share a common characteristic or attribute], wherein the filtered results of the cell specific or beam-specific radio measurements have been filtered at least by removing correlated results relating to at least one but not all of the at least two of the plurality of cells or transmit beams [see pg. 5, ¶52 lines 1-10, the evaluation of the periodicity of the received signal quality analysis process comprises analyzing how often the received signal quality analysis process is performed for each of the pairings, comparing the periodicities for the pairings for which the received signal quality is correlated, and so on].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide receiving “information on a correlation between cell-specific radio measurements carried out for at least two of the plurality of cells or beam-specific radio measurements carried out for at least two of the plurality of transmit beams”, “wherein the filtered results of the cell specific or beam-specific radio measurements have been filtered at least by removing correlated results relating to at least one but not all of the at least two of the plurality of cells or transmit beams” as taught by DA SILVA in the system of Luo to facilitate more efficient channel quality reporting in a wireless communication system that utilizes beamforming [see DA SILVA, pg. 2, ¶13 lines 1-3].
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5, 8, 9, 14, 17 and 18 is/are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
United States Patent Application Publication: KU et al. (US 2020/0336196 A1); see fig. 16, pgs. 17-18, ¶184-¶201.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RUSHIL P SAMPAT whose telephone number is (469) 295-9141. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Fri (8 AM - 5 PM).
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, Ian Moore can be reached on (571) 272-3085. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RUSHIL P. SAMPAT/Primary Examiner- TC 2400, Art Unit 2469