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
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 5/26/2026. The amendment has been entered and considered.
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, 7-13, 15, 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant et al. “Grant” WO2024/208978 in view of Awadin et al. “Awadin” US 2024/0015546.
Regarding claim 1, Grant teaches a method, comprising:
receiving, by a processor of an apparatus, a report configuration from a network node having a plurality of antenna ports, wherein the report configuration comprises information regarding at least one adaptation pattern associated with a measurement resource configuration, and wherein the adaptation pattern indicates at least one of a target number of the antenna ports and a power offset value configured by the network node (CSI sub configurations are measured and reported which include spatial and power domain adaptation parameters. The spatial domain can include codebook restrictions and the power domain parameters can include power offset information. Lastly the information includes antenna port muting patterns; Page 9 2nd paragraph. This is done in response to the UE receiving CSI reporting sub configuration information; Page 9, first paragraph);
transmitting, by the processor, a measurement report based on the report configuration (The UE reports the measured information to the base station; Page 9 2nd paragraph); and
the adaptation pattern comprises a sub-configuration corresponding to an antenna port subset (the information includes antenna port muting patterns indicating subsets of ports to measure; Page 9 2nd paragraph).
Grant does not expressly disclose sub-configuration including bitmaps indicating antenna ports; however, Awadin teaches that bitmaps are applicable to patterns with respect to the CSI reports. Bitmaps are tied to the NZP-CSI-RS. The RRC indicates antenna configurations the base station can switch between and the bitmap is similar to the RRC parameter; Paragraphs 133 and 146. Further, paragraph 101 teaches that the panels can be adjusted by enabling/disabling the antenna elements associated to an antenna port. Thus one can see the bitmaps are associated with the antenna configurations and the configurations of the antennas is tied to the antenna ports. Thus the bitmap information indicate antenna port information as claimed).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Grant to include bitmaps with respect to the antennas as taught by Awadin.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the base station can properly indicate antenna information to the UE with respect to CSI-RS reporting as taught by Awadin; Paragraphs 133 and 146.
Regarding claim 2, Grant teaches the adaptation pattern indicates at least one of a subset selection of antenna ports and a specified codebook configuration (The information includes antenna port muting patterns indicating subsets of ports to measure. The information also includes an indication of a codebook subset restriction; Page 9 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 3, Grant teaches the specified codebook configuration includes an indication of a subset restriction for one or two transmission, multi or single panel (The information an indication of a codebook subset restriction; Page 9 2nd paragraph. The codebook includes an antenna panel (first paragraph page 3. Figures 1 and 3 also show the plurality of antennas and antenna patterns. The Examiner notes as set forth in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) herein, limitations in dependent claims that further limit an unselected option for the “specified codebook configuration” are not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claim 4, Grant teaches the power offset value is used to determine a candidate power offset value (there are two different power offsets. PowercontrolOffset and powerControloffsetSS which are viewed as candidate power offsets; Page 4 consecutive paragraphs starting with “the information element”.
Regarding claim 5, Grant teaches:
Measuring, by the processor, a CSI-RS based on the report configuration wherein the antenna port subset indicates one or more enabled or disabled antenna ports (the information includes antenna port muting patterns indicating subsets of ports which are measured; Page 9 2nd paragraph. Further, based on Type 1 or Type 2, (See Figures 1-3) antennas are disabled/enabled; Page 3 see “type 1, Type 2”); and
Generating, by the processor, the measurement report according to a result of the measuring of the CSI-RS and the specified codebook configuration (CSI-RS is measured/generated based on the received information which includes the codebook configuration information; Page 9 2nd paragraph. *Note** As set forth in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) herein, limitations in dependent claims that further limit an unselected option for the specified codebook configuration are not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claim 7, Grant teaches the adaptation pattern indicates a resource identify (the adaptation parameters are with respect to at least one CSI for various settings. This information indicates measurements with respect to resources configured within CSI-RS; Page 9 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 8, Grant teaches the adaptation pattern comprises a list of sub-configurations and each sub-configuration corresponds to a list of measurement resources (the information includes antenna port muting patterns indicating subsets of ports to measure. Further, the adaptation parameters are with respect to at least one CSI for various settings. This information indicates measurements with respect to resources configured within CSI-RS which are measured; Page 9 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 9, Grant teaches a method, comprising:
Configuring, by a processor of an apparatus, at least one adaptation pattern associated with a measurement resource configuration, wherein the adaptation pattern indicates at least one of a target number of a plurality of antenna ports and a power offset value (CSI sub configurations are measured and reported which include spatial and power domain adaptation parameters. The spatial domain can include codebook restrictions and the power domain parameters can include power offset information. Lastly the information includes antenna port patterns; Page 9 2nd paragraph. This is done in response to the UE receiving CSI reporting sub configuration information; Page 9, first paragraph. Thus one can see the network node configures this information before sending it to the UE)
transmitting, by a processor of an apparatus, a report configuration comprising information regarding the adaptation pattern to a communication apparatus for CSI evaluation (CSI sub configurations are measured and reported which include spatial and power domain adaptation parameters. The spatial domain can include codebook restrictions and the power domain parameters can include power offset information. Lastly the information includes antenna port patterns; Page 9 2nd paragraph. This is done in response to the UE receiving CSI reporting sub configuration information; Page 9, first paragraph); and
the adaptation pattern comprises a sub-configuration corresponding to an antenna port subset (the information includes antenna port muting patterns indicating subsets of ports to measure; Page 9 2nd paragraph).
Grant does not expressly disclose sub-configuration including bitmaps indicating antenna ports; however, Awadin teaches that bitmaps are applicable to patterns with respect to the CSI reports. Bitmaps are tied to the NZP-CSI-RS. The RRC indicates antenna configurations the base station can switch between and the bitmap is similar to the RRC parameter; Paragraphs 133 and 146. Further, paragraph 101 teaches that the panels can be adjusted by enabling/disabling the antenna elements associated to an antenna port. Thus one can see the bitmaps are associated with the antenna configurations and the configurations of the antennas is tied to the antenna ports. Thus the bitmap information indicate antenna port information as claimed).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Grant to include bitmaps with respect to the antennas as taught by Awadin.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the base station can properly indicate antenna information to the UE with respect to CSI-RS reporting as taught by Awadin; Paragraphs 133 and 146.
Regarding claim 10, Grant teaches the adaptation pattern indicates at least one of a subset selection of antenna ports and a specified codebook configuration (The information includes antenna port muting patterns indicating subsets of ports to measure. The information also includes an indication of a codebook subset restriction; Page 9 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 11, Grant teaches the specified codebook configuration includes an indication of a subset restriction for one or two transmission, multi or single panel (The information an indication of a codebook subset restriction; Page 9 2nd paragraph. The codebook includes an antenna panel (first paragraph page 3. Figures 1 and 3 also show the plurality of antennas and antenna patterns. The Examiner notes as set forth in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) herein, limitations in dependent claims that further limit an unselected option for the “specified codebook configuration” are not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Regarding claim 12, Grant teaches the power offset value is used to determine a candidate power offset value (there are two different power offsets. PowercontrolOffset and powerControloffsetSS which are viewed as candidate power offsets; Page 4 consecutive paragraphs starting with “the information element”.
Regarding claim 13, Grant teaches:
Determining, by the processor, and enabled or disabled antenna port subset (the information includes antenna port muting patterns indicating subsets of ports which are measured; Page 9 2nd paragraph. Further, based on Type 1 or Type 2, (See Figures 1-3) antennas are disabled/enabled; Page 3 see “type 1, Type 2”); and
transmitting, by the processor, one or more CSI-RS associated with the antenna port subset, wherein one or more disabled antenna ports are not involved in transmitting of the associated CSI-RS (CSI-RS is measured/generated based on the received information which includes the codebook configuration information; Page 9 2nd paragraph. *Note** As set forth in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) herein, limitations in dependent claims that further limit an unselected option for the specified codebook configuration are not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation. Muted/disabled antennas do not transmit).
Regarding claim 15, Grant teaches the adaptation pattern indicates a resource identify (the adaptation parameters are with respect to at least one CSI for various settings. This information indicates measurements with respect to resources configured within CSI-RS; Page 9 2nd paragraph).
Regarding claim 16, Grant teaches the adaptation pattern comprises a list of sub-configurations and each sub-configuration corresponds to a list of measurement resources (the information includes antenna port muting patterns indicating subsets of ports to measure. Further, the adaptation parameters are with respect to at least one CSI for various settings. This information indicates measurements with respect to resources configured within CSI-RS which are measured; Page 9 2nd paragraph).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grant.
Regarding claim 17, Grant teaches a method, comprising:
configuring, by a processor of an apparatus, a cell-wise indication of an adaptation, wherein the cell-wise indication includes information regarding at least one of a number of antenna ports enabled for CSI-evaluation a change in power offset and a reset of a predetermined procedure and transmitting, by the processing, the cell-wise indication to one or more communication apparatuses in a communication network (a network node sends CSI reporting configuration information (i.e. cell-wise indication) to a UE which includes antenna port muting patterns indicating subsets of ports which are to be measured. Further there is a spatial domain and power domain adaptation; Page 9 2nd paragraph. Further, based on Type 1 or Type 2, (See Figures 1-3) antennas are disabled/enabled; Page 3 see “type 1, Type 2”).
Regarding claim 18, Grant teaches the predetermined procedure includes at least a CSI evaluation procedures and a beam management procedure, and the adaptation includes at least one spatial domain and power domain adaptation (CSI sub configurations are measured and reported which include spatial and power domain adaptation parameters. The spatial domain can include codebook restrictions and the power domain parameters can include power offset information. This is done in response to the UE receiving CSI reporting sub configuration information; Page 9, first paragraph). As set forth in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) herein, limitations in dependent claims that further limit an unselected option for the “predetermined procedure” are not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation.
Regarding claim 19, Grant teaches the cell-wise indication is transmitted via a group-specific DCI or paging DCI (group common DCI is used to ask multiple UEs to measure CSI-RS; Page 25 embodiment 5).
Regarding claim 20, Grant teaches the power offset value comprises a power offset for PDSCH related to CSI-RS (Page 9 2nd paragraph teaches the power domain adaptation parameter includes PDSCH to CSI-RS power offset. As set forth in the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) herein, limitations in dependent claims that further limit an unselected option for the “power offset” are not required as part of the broadest reasonable interpretation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Awadin does not teach or suggest the sub-configuration includes a bitmap and the target number of antenna ports is indicated by the bitmap because Awadin merely teaches a bitmap is used to select, map or index to a specific predefined pattern or flab resources. Thus, Awadin does not teach the bitmap parameter itself indicating the target number of antenna ports are required by claims 1 and 9.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Awadin teaches the association of bitmaps to antenna configurations and the base station can use one or multiple configurations as taught in paragraphs 133 and 146. Paragraph 101 further teaches that the base station can enable/disable all or some of the antenna elements associated with the antenna ports, thus one can see the number of antenna ports is associated with antenna configurations and because the bitmaps represent antenna configurations, the bitmaps represent the target antenna ports as claimed.
Regarding claim 17, Applicant argues Grant does not teach or suggest a reset of a predetermined procedure because while Grant taught a predetermined procedure, there was no indication of a reset of the procedure and that Grant merely teaches triggering a CSI reporting/measurement procedure. Triggering is fundamentally different from resetting a procedure. Applicant argues the reset in the instant specification must explicitly reset the previous measurement states/filters to avoid reporting inaccurate information.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. At the outset, the claimed “reset” does not mean a previously determine value is reset to avoid reporting inaccurate information. The Examiner suggest defining what the term “Reset” means within the claim language to help overcome the art of record. Generally speaking, if a system is triggered to do the same procedure multiple times, this is viewed as a reset because the procedure would be starting over (i.e. reset). Further yet, the claim requires “one of” a number of ports enabled/disabled, change in power, or reset. As shown in the rejection, the power information as well as the enabled/disabled antennas was rejected. The resetting is not required to occur in the claim language. Thus the claims stand properly rejected.
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 BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-5pm 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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights