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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 3-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bai et al. (US 2021/0091838- IDS), hereinafter Bai, in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0124736), hereinafter Huang.
Regarding claim 1, Bai discloses: (1) the base station 402-fig.4 may send a bundle of references 430 to the UE 404, see 0071, and the base station receives all of the multiple CSI 436 in a single message 440, see 0081; (2) CSI-RS for channel estimation at the UE, see 0049.
Bai, however, fails to teach “consecutive period of time” in transmitting multiple specific reference signals over a consecutive period of time.
Huang, in the same field of endeavor as Bai, teaches the base station may transmit interference measurement signals 608 to the UE (e.g. CSI-IM or CSI-RS) in consecutive resources over a period of time 610, see 0077.
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 a mechanism for transmission of certain parameter, i.e., CSI-RS or signals, over a consecutive period of time taught by Huang into the system of Bai. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to reduce the risk of improper scheduling decisions at the base station based on outdated transmitted signals such as RS or CSI-RS.
Regarding claim 3, Bai teaches other wireless communication technologies may have a different frame structure and/or different channels. A frame (10 ms) may be divided into 10 equally sized subframes (1 ms). Each subframe may include one or more time slots. Subframes may also include mini-slots, which may include 7, 4, or 2 symbols. Each slot may include 7 or 14 symbols, depending on the slot configuration, see 0044-0045. Thus, the base station of Bai can be configured to transmit the specific RSs through radio resources in multiple slots over the consecutive period of time as taught by Huang for transmitting multiple specific RSs over the consecutive period of time.
Regarding claim 4, Bai discloses the issues (e.g., delay) experienced due to CSI reporting by a UE may be exacerbated when the UE is in a high-mobility state (e.g., when the UE is traveling at relatively high rates of speeds), as the high-mobility state may introduce the Doppler effect to communication between the UE and the base station thereby making CSI reporting by the UE time-variant. In other words, the faster the UE is moving, the faster channel conditions change over time (change in transmission performance). Thus, the coherence time of the channel between the UE and the base station may be due to the high-mobility state of the UE may be less than the delay experienced during CSI reporting by the UE. Consequently, the CSI reported by the UE and used by the base station for scheduling may not accurately reflect the current channel conditions, which may cause a degradation in performance of communication between the base station and the UE (e.g., lower data rates and/or high decoding error rates), see 0047 and 0063.
Regarding claim 5, Bai discloses that according to various aspects, the UE 404 may be configured to detect 422 that the UE 404 is operating in a high-mobility state. A high-mobility state may be associated with a speed of the UE 404. Thus, the UE 404 may detect 422 that the UE is operating in the high-mobility state by, first, determining the speed at which the UE 404 is traveling (e.g., in miles or kilometers per hour) and, second, determining whether the speed satisfies (e.g., meets or exceeds) a threshold, which may indicate that the UE 404 is operating in the high-mobility state.
[0068] When the UE 404 detects 422 that the UE 404 is operating in the high-mobility state, the UE 404 may transmit an indication of the high-mobility state 424 to the base station 402. The base station 402 may receive the indication of the high-mobility state 424 and, therefore, may be aware that the UE 404 is operating in the high-mobility state and that channel conditions may rapidly change. Based on the indication of the high-mobility state 424, the base station 402 and the UE 404 may communicate to acknowledge use of a predictive model associated with predicting CSI 426. The predictive model associated with predicting CSI may be at least one of a linear model, a higher-order model, and/or a neural network (or machine-learning) model. For example, the base station 402 may instruct the UE 404 that the predictive model associated with predicting CSI is to be used when the base station 402 receives the indication of the high-mobility state 424 from the UE 404, and the UE 404 may respond with an acknowledgement of the instruction. In some aspects, when the base station 402 and the UE 404 communicate to acknowledge the use of the predictive model associated with the predicting CSI 426, the base station 402 and the UE 404 may select (e.g., negotiate) a predictive model to use to determine predicted CSI. The selection of the predictive model associated with predicting CSI may be based on a predefined rule known at the base station 402 and/or the UE 404, such as a predefined rule established by a standard or technical specification promulgated by a standards organization (e.g., 3GPP). Subsequently, the base station 402 may send a bundle of reference signals 430 to the UE 404, which may include a first reference signal 428a, a second reference signal 428b, and so forth through an nth reference signal 428c. Each of the reference signals 428a-c may be associated with a respective time—e.g., the first reference signal 428a may be associated with 0 ms, the second reference signal 428b may be associated with 10 ms, and so forth until the nth reference signal 428c is associated with k ms (e.g., k may be equal to 50 ms in one example). Each of the reference signals 428a-c may be one of a CSI-RS, an SS/PBCH block, a DM-RS on a PDCCH, or a DM-RS on a PDSCH, see 0063 and 0067-0071.
Regarding claim 6, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Bai-Huang for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, this claim has similar limitations as those of claim 4. Therefore, it is rejected under Bai-Huang for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 4.
Allowable subject matter
6. Claims 2 and 7 are rejected based on its dependency, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Chuang et al. (US 2020/0052845 A1) is cited, and considered pertinent to the instant specification.
8. 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
Prosecution Insights