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 .
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 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.
DETAILED ACTION
1. The application of Jeon et al. for the "MULTIPLE CSI REPORTS" filed 03/20/2024 has been examined. This application Claims Priority from Provisional Application 63457268, filed 04/05/2023; from Provisional Application 63457276, filed 04/05/2023 and from Provisional Application 63464437, filed 05/05/2023. Claims 1-20 are pending in the present application.
2. The applicant should use this period for response to thoroughly and very closely proof read and review the whole of the application for correct correlation between reference numerals in the textual portion of the Specification and Drawings along with any minor spelling errors, general typographical errors, accuracy, assurance of proper use for Trademarks TM, and other legal symbols @, where required, and clarity of meaning in the Specification, Drawings, and specifically the claims (i.e., provide proper antecedent basis for “the'' and “said'' within each
claim). Minor typographical errors could render a Patent unenforceable and so the applicant is
strongly encouraged to aid in this endeavor.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. 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.
5. Claim 4, 11, 18 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 4, 11, 18 recite the limitation “n1-n2” on lines 4 and ng-n1-n2 on lines 6. The term "parameter n1-n2" and “parameter ng-n1-n2” are not defined by the claims, does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is not clear what constitutes such “parameter n1-n2”, “parameter ng-n1-n2” and It is not clear what the “parameter n1-n2”, “parameter ng-n1-n2” are or what is involved in determining the RI restriction indicator value for each of a plurality of CSI report. Appropriate correction required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
8. Claims 1-6, 8-13, 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davydov et al. (US#11,463,999) in view of Lee et al. (US#2026/0051938).
Regarding claims 8, 15, the references disclose a system and method for multiple CSI measurement and reports, according to the essential features of the claims. Davydov et al. (US#11,463,999) discloses a user equipment (UE)/BS, comprising: processor, a transceiver (see Fig. 1 for the component structure in an LTE system includes processors 21, 41 transceivers 22, 42) configured to receive: first information related to reception of one or more non-zero power channel state information reference signals (NZP CSI-RSs) on a cell (Figs. 4-5; Col. 6, lines 11-46: At stage 503, the UE receives via RRC signaling an indication as to which resource elements within a downlink subframe carrying NZP CSI-RS and CSI-IM resources corresponding to a CSI process are allocated to those resources), second information related to a first number of sub-configurations corresponding to respective channel state information (CSI) sub-reports (Figs. 4-5; Col. 6, lines 11-46 , UE receives via RRC signaling an indication of one or more processes for which the UE is to sent CSI reports), wherein each sub-configuration corresponds to an adaptation of parameters in one or more of a spatial or power domain associated with receptions of channels or signals (Col. 4, line 65 to Col. 5, line 16: The aperiodic CSI reporting is used to assist link adaptation for multiple coordination decisions), fourth information related to a physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) or a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) for transmitting the CSI report, and the one or more NZP CSI-RSs based on the first information (Figs. 4-5; Col. 3, line 55 to 4, line 12 & Col. 6, lines 11-46: A UE may use the CSI-RS to estimate the channel and produce a CSI report that is fed back to the serving cell via the PUCCH or PUSCH. At state 507 – the UE sends the requested CSI report via the PUSCH); and a processor operably coupled to the transceiver, the processor configured to determine the second number of CSI sub-reports based on the second information, the third information, and the reception of the one or more NZP CSI-RSs (Figs. 4-5; Col. 6, lines 11-46: Figs. 4-5 illustrates a procedure followed by a UE/eNB according to one embodiment in responding to requests for CSI reports based upon dynamically transmitted CSI resources. At stag 501, the UE receives via RRC signaling from the serving eNB an identification of one or more CSI processes for which the UE is to send CSI reports. At stage 503, the UE receives via RRC signaling an indication as to which resource elements within a downlink subframe carrying NZP CSI-RS and CSI-IM resources corresponding to a CSI process are allocated to those resources), wherein the transceiver is further configured to transmit the PUSCH with the CSI report including the second number of CSI sub-reports (para [0016] Al state 505, the UE receives a CSI request from the eNB using physical layer control signaling that instructs the UE to send an aperiodic CSI report and that indicates in the same subframe which downlink subframe carries NZP CSI-RS and CSI-IM resources. At stage 507, the UE sends the requested CSI report via the PUSCH).
However, Davydov reference does not explicitly disclose wherein a first/second number of sub-configuration corresponding to respective CSI sub-reports. In the same field of endeavor, Lee et al. (US#2026/0051938) discloses in Fig. 1 a diagram illustrated an example process 100 for receiving updated configuration parameters, in which a CSI-ReportConfig can contain a list of one or more sub-configurations, where each sub-configuration is identified by CSI report sub-configuration ID and corresponds to a list of one or more CSI-RS resources, corresponds to a CSI-RS antenna port subset, and/or corresponds to a power offset for PDSCH relative to CSI-RS, and individual CSI feedback reports 114 refer to individual CSI reports and/or individual CSI sub-reports included in a CSI report (para [0025]-[0026], [0032]: csi-ReportSubConfig is configured, for a corresponding CSI sub-report).
One skilled in the art would have recognized the need for effectively and efficiently determining multiple CSI-RS configuration for spatial and power adaptation, and would have applied “csi-ReportSubConfig is configured, for a corresponding CSI sub-report” as taught by Lee’s into the system of Davydov’s implement dynamic transmission of CSI resources, so that it provides a way for a UE/BS to enhance state adaptation within the wireless system (Lee et al.: Figs. 2-3; para [0015], [0039]). Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply Lee’s tspatial element adaptation for network energy saving into Davydov’s aperiodic CSI-RS with aperiodic report triggering with the motivation being to provide a method and system for multiple CSI reports.
Regarding claims 9, 16, Davydov et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 8, 15 as set forth above, Lee et al. further teaches wherein the second information provides an NZP CSI-RS antenna port subset via a bit sequence of a size equal to a number of antenna ports of the one or more NZP CSI-RSs indicated by the first information ( ), a bit value '0' indicates that a corresponding antenna port is disabled, and a bit value '1' indicates that a corresponding antenna port is enabled (Fig. 3; table 1.2-1; para [0044]-[0045], [0075]-[0076]: nrofPorts configured for the CSI-RS resources(s) within the NZP-CSI-RS-ResourceSet contained in the CSI-ResourceConfig for channel measurement that corresponds to the CSI-ReportConfig using a bitmap indication of CSI-RS antenna port enablement and disablement).
Regarding claims 10, 17, Davydov et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 8, 15 as set forth above, Lee et al. further teaches wherein the second information provides mixed CSI codebook combination in a slot for the first number of sub-configurations, typeI-SinglePanel codebook is indicated for a first sub-configuration, and typel-MultiPanel codebook is indicated for a second sub-configuration (Fig. 4; para [0073]-[0074]: the UE 402 expects to be configured with the higher layer parameter codebookType set to ‘typel-SinglePanel’ or ‘typel-MultiPanel’).
In sofar as understood, Regarding claims 11, 18, Davydov et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 8, 15 as set forth above, Lee et al. further teaches wherein the second information provides a rank indicator (RI) restriction indicator, and the RI restriction indicator is provided by: parameter n1-n2, when a sub-configuration is associated with a typeI-SinglePanel codebook, and parameter ng-n1-n2, when a sub-configuration is associated with a typeI-MultiPanel codebook (para [0076]: the sub-configuration can be configured with a RI restriction parameter).
Regarding claims 12, 19, Davydov et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 8, 15 as set forth above, Lee et al. further teaches wherein a radio resource control (RRC) message indicating a list of trigger states, wherein each trigger state from the list of trigger states indicates one or more sub-configuration indexes from the first number of sub-configurations, and a DCI format indicating an index from the list of trigger states (Figs. 7-8; para [0144 ]-[0145]: radio resource control (RRC) for the CSI/measurement configurations and/or downlink control information (DCI) signaling for activation/triggering of the selected CSI/measurement configurations).
Regarding claims 13, 20, Davydov et al. in view of Lee et al. teaches the apparatus of claims 8, 15 as set forth above, Lee et al. further teaches wherein the third information is provided by a medium access control element (MAC CE) for activating or deactivating semi-persistent CSI reporting on PUCCH by indicating activation or deactivation of a corresponding sub-configuration from the first number of sub-configurations (Figs. 7-8; para [0144 ]-[0145]: receiving (e.g., via DCI, MAC CE, and/or the like) an indication (e.g., activation trigger and/or the like) to indicate a selected CSI configuration among the configured set of CSI configurations to be used).
Regarding claims 1-6, they are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 8-13 discussed above. Therefore, claims 1-6 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 8-13 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 7, 14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome 112 para. as set forth above, and in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
10. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein receiving: information related to a search space set for receiving physical downlink control channels (PDCCHs) in connected mode discontinuous reception (C-DRX) off-durations, wherein a PDCCH from the PDCCHs provides a DCI format indicating a CSI report early indication (CEI), and the PDCCH, wherein the CEI being positive indicates to receive the one or more NZP CSI-RSs based on the first information, determine the second number of CSI sub-reports, and transmit the PUCCH or the PUSCH with the CSI report including the second number of CSI sub-report, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
The Kang et al. (US#11,128361) method and apparatus for transmitting and receiving CSI-RS.
The Gaal et al. (US#9,713,026) is cited to show CSI measurement and reporting for enhanced interference management for traffic adaptation (EIMTA) in LTE.
The Abedini et al. (US#2022/0417845) shows modified synchronization signal block for network energy saving.
The George et al. (US#2025/0374107) shows dynamic adaptation of spatial elements.
The Lu et al. (US#2025/0183962) shows information transmission method and device, and storage medium.
The Hindy et al. (US#12,494,837) CSI reporting for multiple transmit/receive points.
The Jeon et al. (US#2024/0056152) shows CSI measurement and report with operation state adaptation.
The Jeon et al. (US#2025/0038810) shows CSI for joint transmission with adaptation hypotheses.
The Jeon et al. (US#2025/0023611) shows transmitting CSI for multiple hypotheses.
The Jeon et al. (US#2024/0284223) shows CSI measurement and reporting with network adaptation.
The Jeon (US#2025/0106669) shows reporting CSI associated with sub-configuration.
12. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
13. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
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, Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
14. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
03/09/2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477