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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDSs), submitted on 23 February 2024 and 22 January 2026, were filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 23 February 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 23 February 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Specification
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 Objections
Claim 1 and Claim 29 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “obtaining a CSI report”. Here, the recitation “a CSI report” has already been recited in the preamble of each claim. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “obtaining the CSI report”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1 and Claim 29 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “for one or a plurality of stations”. Here, the recitation “one” should be amended to “a station” to improve claim clarity. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “for a station or a plurality of stations”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 3, 8, 12, 30, and 34 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recites “the stations”; however, the independent claims, from which said claims depend, recite “a plurality of stations”. Here, the recitation of “the stations” is not supported by antecedent basis. Examiner respectfully suggests amending “the stations” to “the plurality of stations”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8 and Claim 30 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recites “all or part of CSI measurement results”. Here, the recitation of “CSI measurement results” is not supported by antecedent basis. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “the CSI measurement results”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recites “spatial-domain codebook information for each station of stations contained in the CSI report”. Here, the recitation of “stations” is not supported by antecedent basis. Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “the plurality of stations”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 12 and Claim 34 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recites “the same or different”. Here, the recitation of “the same” is not supported by antecedent basis. Examiner respectfully suggests amending “the same or different” to “identical or different”. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-2, 29, and 58-61 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Zeineddine et al. (US 20230171623 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Zeineddine”).
Regarding Claim 1, Zeineddine discloses a method for obtaining a channel state information (CSI) report, comprising:
receiving network information (¶167-168 & Fig. 10 (1002) & Claim 13 & Claim 15, Zeineddine discloses receiving, by a remote unit, channel state information report configuration information. Examiner correlates channel state information report configuration information to “network information”); and
obtaining a CSI report based on the network information (¶167-168 & Fig. 10 (1002) & Claim 13 & Claim 15, Zeineddine discloses generating, by the remote unit, a set of channel state information reports based on the channel state information report configuration information), the CSI report comprising CSI measurement results (¶93-95, Zeineddine discloses that the CSI report part 2 comprises precoding matrix indicators (PMI) or channel quality information (CQI) for at least one UE) in a coherent joint transmission hypothesis for one or a plurality of stations (¶59, Zeineddine discloses that either coherent joint transmission or non-coherent joint transmission may be used for reporting channel state information).
Regarding Claim 2, Zeineddine discloses the method of claim 1.
Zeineddine further discloses the network information comprises codebook- type indication information (¶167-168 & Fig. 10 (1002) & Claim 13 & Claim 15, Zeineddine discloses channel state information report configuration information where the CSI report configuration information includes a codebook type parameter. Examiner correlates a codebook type parameter to “codebook-type indication information”), the codebook-type indication information indicating a codebook type in the CSI report (¶167-168 & Fig. 10 (1002) & Claim 13 & Claim 15, Zeineddine discloses that codebook type parameter is a parameter that indicates the codebook type to be used in the CSI report).
Regarding Claim 58, Zeineddine discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions which, when executed on a communication apparatus, cause the communication apparatus to perform the method of claim 1 (¶46-47 & Fig. 2, Zeineddine discloses that a remote unit comprises memory 204 storing computer-readable instructions for execution by a processor 202 to perform a method).
Regarding Claim 59, Zeineddine discloses a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium storing computer-readable instructions which, when executed on a communication apparatus, cause the communication apparatus to perform the method of claim 29 (¶56-57 & Fig. 3, Zeineddine discloses that a network unit comprises memory 304 storing computer-readable instructions for execution by a processor 302 to perform a method).
Regarding Claim 60, Zeineddine discloses a communication apparatus, comprising a processor and a memory storing program codes which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 1 (¶46-47 & Fig. 2, Zeineddine discloses that a remote unit comprises a processor 202 and a memory 204 storing computer-readable instructions for execution by the processor 202 to perform a method).
Regarding Claim 61, Zeineddine discloses a communication apparatus, comprising a processor and a memory storing program codes which, when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform the method of claim 29 (¶56-57 & Fig. 3, Zeineddine discloses that a network unit comprises a processor 302 and a memory 304 storing computer-readable instructions for execution by the processor 302).
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.
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeineddine in view of Wang et al. (US 20210234583 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Wang”).
Regarding Claim 3, Zeineddine discloses the method of claim 2.
However, Zeineddine does not disclose wherein the codebook type comprises a first codebook type and a second codebook type, the first codebook type indicating obtaining a frequency-domain codebook for each of the plurality of stations, the second codebook type indicating jointly obtaining a frequency-domain codebook for the stations.
Wang, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the codebook type comprises a first codebook type and a second codebook type (¶604-605, Wang discloses a first feedback mode corresponding to a type II codebook and a second feedback mode corresponding to the type II codebook), the first codebook type indicating obtaining a frequency-domain codebook for each of the plurality of stations (¶604-605, Wang discloses that the first feedback mode corresponding to a type II codebook is a frequency domain unit independent feedback mode), the second codebook type indicating jointly obtaining a frequency-domain codebook for the stations (¶604-605, Wang discloses that the second feedback mode corresponding to a type II codebook is a frequency domain unit joint feedback mode).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zeineddine by requiring that the codebook type comprises a first codebook type and a second codebook type where the first codebook type indicating obtaining a frequency-domain codebook for each of the plurality of stations and where the second codebook type indicating jointly obtaining a frequency-domain codebook for the stations as taught by Wang because channel state information (CSI) feedback is improved by providing a second feedback mode which greatly reduces feedback overheads (Wang, ¶605).
Claims 8, 13, 27, 30, 35, and 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeineddine in view of Song et al. (US 20210167830 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Song”).
Regarding Claim 8, Zeineddine discloses the method of claim 1.
Zeineddine further discloses wherein the CSI report comprises first information and second information (¶93-95, Zeineddine discloses that the CSI report comprises a part 1 and a part 2),
wherein the first information comprises at least one of:
quantity information of stations (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”), [or]
information of a number of non-zero wideband amplitude coefficients (¶93, Zeineddine discloses that the CSI report part 1 comprises a number of non-zero wideband amplitude per layer for Type II CSI feedback on the PUSCH); and
the second information comprises all or part of CSI measurement results for the stations (¶93-95, Zeineddine discloses that the CSI report part 2 comprises precoding matrix indicators (PMI) or channel quality information (CQI) for at least one UE).
However, Zeineddine does not disclose the first information comprises reference resource index indication information.
Song, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the first information comprises reference resource index indication information (¶39, Song discloses that the CSI report further comprises the channel state information - reference resource index).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zeineddine by requiring that the first information comprises reference resource index indication information as taught by Song because channel state information (CSI) reporting is improved by providing a relevant CSI report configuration to resolve CSI report configuration under CSI resources with different spatial properties (Song, ¶4).
Regarding Claim 13, Zeineddine in view of Song discloses the method of claim 8.
Zeineddine further discloses the second information comprises i groups of information (¶93-95, Zeineddine discloses that the CSI report part 2 comprises precoding matrix indicators (PMI) or channel quality information (CQI) for at least one UE/remote unit. Here, the CSI report contains at least one CSI for the remote unit, thus i would be equal to 1),
wherein i is a quantity of stations contained in the CSI report (¶93-95, Zeineddine discloses at least one UE/remote unit), and a CSI measurement result for one station corresponds to one group of information (¶93-95, Zeineddine discloses that the CSI report part 2 comprises precoding matrix indicators (PMI) or channel quality information (CQI) corresponds to at least one UE/remote unit).
Regarding Claim 27, Zeineddine in view of Song discloses the method of claim 13.
Zeineddine further discloses wherein the i groups of information are arranged according to priorities (¶93-95, Zeineddine discloses that the CSI report part 2 is arranged according to at least one UE/remote unit).
Regarding Claim 30, Zeineddine discloses the method of claim 29.
Zeineddine further discloses wherein the CSI report comprises first information and second information (¶93-95, Zeineddine discloses that the CSI report comprises a part 1 and a part 2),
wherein the first information comprises at least one of:
quantity information of stations (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”), [or]
information of a number of non-zero wideband amplitude coefficients (¶93, Zeineddine discloses that the CSI report part 1 comprises a number of non-zero wideband amplitude per layer for Type II CSI feedback on the PUSCH); and
the second information comprises all or part of CSI measurement results for the stations (¶93-95, Zeineddine discloses that the CSI report part 2 comprises precoding matrix indicators (PMI) or channel quality information (CQI) for at least one UE).
However, Zeineddine does not disclose the first information comprises reference resource index indication information.
Song, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the first information comprises reference resource index indication information (¶39, Song discloses that the CSI report further comprises the channel state information - reference resource index).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zeineddine by requiring that the first information comprises reference resource index indication information as taught by Song because channel state information (CSI) reporting is improved by providing a relevant CSI report configuration to resolve CSI report configuration under CSI resources with different spatial properties (Song, ¶4).
Regarding Claim 35, Zeineddine in view of Song discloses the method of claim 30.
Zeineddine further discloses the second information comprises i groups of information (¶93-95, Zeineddine discloses that the CSI report part 2 comprises precoding matrix indicators (PMI) or channel quality information (CQI) for at least one UE/remote unit. Here, the CSI report contains at least one CSI for the remote unit, thus i would be equal to 1),
wherein i is a quantity of stations contained in the CSI report (¶93-95, Zeineddine discloses at least one UE/remote unit), and a CSI measurement result for one station corresponds to one group of information (¶93-95, Zeineddine discloses that the CSI report part 2 comprises precoding matrix indicators (PMI) or channel quality information (CQI) corresponds to at least one UE/remote unit).
Regarding Claim 49, Zeineddine in view of Song discloses the method of claim 35.
Zeineddine further discloses wherein the i groups of information are arranged according to priorities (¶93-95, Zeineddine discloses that the CSI report part 2 is arranged according to at least one UE/remote unit).
Claims 11 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeineddine in view of Song in further view of Liu et al. (US 20190081683 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Liu”).
Regarding Claim 11, Zeineddine in view of Song discloses the method of claim 8.
However, Zeineddine in view of Song does not disclose wherein the reference resource index indication information is obtained through a bitmap.
Liu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the reference resource index indication information is obtained through a bitmap (¶18 & ¶96 & ¶130, Liu discloses that the reference signal resource index, or CRI, may be in the form of a bitmap).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zeineddine in view of Song by requiring that the reference resource index indication information is obtained through a bitmap as taught by Liu because channel state information (CSI) reporting is improved by reducing reference signal resource overheads in a CSI process (Liu, ¶5).
Regarding Claim 33, Zeineddine in view of Song discloses the method of claim 30.
However, Zeineddine in view of Song does not disclose wherein the reference resource index indication information is obtained through a bitmap.
Liu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the reference resource index indication information is obtained through a bitmap (¶18 & ¶96 & ¶130, Liu discloses that the reference signal resource index, or CRI, may be in the form of a bitmap).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zeineddine in view of Song by requiring that the reference resource index indication information is obtained through a bitmap as taught by Liu because channel state information (CSI) reporting is improved by reducing reference signal resource overheads in a CSI process (Liu, ¶5).
Claims 12 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zeineddine in view of Song in further view of Grossman et al. (US 20220286176 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Grossman”).
Regarding Claim 12, Zeineddine in view of Song discloses the method of claim 8.
However, Zeineddine in view of Song does not disclose wherein the second information comprises at least one of: spatial-domain codebook information for each station of stations contained in the CSI report, frequency-domain codebook information for each station of the stations contained in the CSI report, or non-zero coefficient information for each station of the stations contained in the CSI report, wherein the frequency-domain codebook information for each station is the same or different.
Grossman, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the second information comprises at least one of:
spatial-domain codebook information for each station of stations contained in the CSI report (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”),
frequency-domain codebook information for each station of the stations contained in the CSI report (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”), or
non-zero coefficient information for each station of the stations contained in the CSI report (¶104-112, Grossmann discloses that the CSI part 2 comprises at least the amplitude and phase information of the selected non-zero combining coefficients of the CSI report),
wherein the frequency-domain codebook information for each station is the same or different (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zeineddine in view of Song by requiring that the second information comprises non-zero coefficient information for each station of the stations contained in the CSI report as taught by Liu because three-component CSI reporting scheme improves CSI reporting by ensuring that the feedback overhead for reporting the combining coefficient of the precoder matrix or CSI matrix is no longer dependent on the number of configured frequency domain subbands (Grossman, ¶10).
Regarding Claim 34, Zeineddine in view of Song discloses the method of claim 30.
However, Zeineddine in view of Song does not disclose wherein the second information comprises at least one of: spatial-domain codebook information for each station of stations contained in the CSI report, frequency-domain codebook information for each station of the stations contained in the CSI report, or non-zero coefficient information for each station of the stations contained in the CSI report, wherein the frequency-domain codebook information for each station is the same or different.
Grossman, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the second information comprises at least one of:
spatial-domain codebook information for each station of stations contained in the CSI report (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”),
frequency-domain codebook information for each station of the stations contained in the CSI report (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”), or
non-zero coefficient information for each station of the stations contained in the CSI report (¶104-112, Grossmann discloses that the CSI part 2 comprises at least the amplitude and phase information of the selected non-zero combining coefficients of the CSI report),
wherein the frequency-domain codebook information for each station is the same or different (Examiner notes that the use of “or” and “and/or” has a broadest reasonable interpretation of any element in the list that follows or any of those elements taken together. See Ex Parte Gross, Appeal 2011-004811, Application No. 11/565,411. Thus, Examiner has not treated all limitations separated by “and/or” and “or”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Zeineddine in view of Song by requiring that the second information comprises non-zero coefficient information for each station of the stations contained in the CSI report as taught by Liu because three-component CSI reporting scheme improves CSI reporting by ensuring that the feedback overhead for reporting the combining coefficient of the precoder matrix or CSI matrix is no longer dependent on the number of configured frequency domain subbands (Grossman, ¶10).
Internet Communications
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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474