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 .
Drawings
Figures 1-7 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 112
3. 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.
4. Claims 1-2, 5, 8-11, 13-16 and 22 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.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the computed CSI” at line 26. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as “reporting the computed CSI” is combined with the preamble without any step of the first three bullet steps. The same remark applies to claim 22.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “the number of precoding matrix indicator” at lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 24 is vague and indefinite. It is unclear as to what is being claimed in regards to (a) OR (b) OR (c)AND (d), in particular how the claim should be read as {(a) AND (d)] OR [(b) AND (d)] OR [(c) AND (d)] } OR as {(a) OR (b) OR [(c) and (d)]}.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. Claims 1 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2023/0246781), hereinafter referred to as Kim.
Regarding claim 1, Kim discloses the UE may transmit the CSI report (S1406-fig.14) to the base station, see 0348 (equivalent to reporting the computed CSI).
Regarding claim 22, Kim discloses a UE 100-fig.17 that includes processor(s), transceiver(s) and memory(s) to perform the claimed steps. A broadest reasonable interpretation for “to cause the UE to perform one or more of” is --- to cause the UE to perform one of ---. Thus, the UE may transmit the CSI report (S1406-fig.14) to the base station, see 0348 (equivalent to reporting the computed CSI).
8. Claims 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Muruganathan et al. (US 2024/0250727).
The applied reference has a common assignee with the instant application. Based upon the earlier effectively filed date of the reference, it constitutes prior art under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2). This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) might be overcome by: (1) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(a) that the subject matter disclosed in the reference was obtained directly or indirectly from the inventor or a joint inventor of this application and is thus not prior art in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(A); (2) a showing under 37 CFR 1.130(b) of a prior public disclosure under 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(B) if the same invention is not being claimed; or (3) a statement pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) establishing that, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, the subject matter disclosed in the reference and the claimed invention were either owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person or subject to a joint research agreement.
Regarding claim 24, Muruganathan discloses a method performed by a wireless device for CSI reporting includes: receiving a configuration for a plurality of Non-Zero Power (NZP) Channel State Information Reference Signal (CSI-RS) resources from a base station; performing channel measurement on the plurality of NZP CSI-RS resources, see 0148. Also, each NZP-CSI-RS-ResourceSet may consist of one or more NZP CSI-RS resources. When the NZP-CSI-RS-ResourceSet consists of multiple NZP CSI-RS resources particularly in FR2, each of the NZP CSI-RS resources is associated with a different TCI state, see 0149 (equivalent to sending to a UE information for a Channel state information, reporting configuration that configures the UE with a plurality of Non-Zero Power, NZP, channel state information reference signal, CSI-RS, resources for channel measurement, where each of the multiple NZP CSI-RS resources is associated with a different Transmission Configuration Indicator, TCI state).
Regarding claim 25, this claim has similar limitation ns as those of claim 24. Therefore, it is rejected under Muruganathan for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 24. The Base Station 1818 includes a processing circuitry 1830-fig.18 configured to cause the BS to perform the claimed step.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
9. 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.
10. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim, in view of Rahman et al. (US 2023/0037394), hereinafter referred to as Rahman.
Regarding claim 2, Kim discloses all claimed limitations, except the CSI further comprises information about the second set of FD basis vectors.
Rahman discloses the UE includes a transceiver configured to: receive a configuration about a channel state information (CSI) report, the configuration including information about a codebook, the codebook comprising components: (i) sets of basis vectors including a first set of vectors each of length P.sub.CSIRS×1 for a spatial domain (SD), a second set of vectors each of length N.sub.3×1 for a frequency domain (FD), see 0005.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ the teaching of Rhaman
into the system of Kim. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to enable the base station to select appropriate communication parameters to efficiently and effectively perform wireless data communication with the UE.
Allowable subject matter
14. Claims 5, 8-11, and 13-17 would be allowable if claims 1 and 22 rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Farag et al. (US 20210359745) is cited, and considered pertinent to the instant specification.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUC C HO whose telephone number is (571)272-3147. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached on 571-270-1420 (Gary.mui@uspto.gov). 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.
/DUC C HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465