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
Applicant’s amendment filed on 08/03/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5,8,14-18,20 and 31-35 have been amended. No Claim has been canceled in this amendment. No New Claim has been added in this amendment.
Claims 1-25 and 31-35 are pending in this application, with claims 1,14,31 and 34 being independent.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to Claim Objections have been considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the Objections are withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to rejection of Claims 1,3,5-7,10-11,13-15,17,19 and 21-28 under 35 U.S.C. §103 have been considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to any of the references being used in the current rejection.
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(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 1,14,31 and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being clearly anticipated by Salem et al. (WO 2020/030848 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Salem”).
Regarding Claims 1,14,31 and 34, Salem discloses methods for wireless communications at a user equipment (UE) (Salem Fig.1 Pages:3-4,37-38 A UE) and a base station (Salem Fig.1 Pages:3-4,37-38 A base station), comprising: receiving by the UE a plurality of downlink messages from a base station (Salem Fig.1 Pages:3-4,37-38 The base station sends reference signals and the UE receives); transmitting by the UE, to the base station and received by the base station, a message comprising an indication of a level of correlation between channel state information associated with the plurality of downlink messages (Salem Fig.1 Pages:3-4,37-38 The UE measures a level of correlations among the received (i.e. channel state) signals and informs the base station); and communicating with the base station based at least in part on transmitting the message comprising the indication of the level of correlation between channel state information (Salem Fig.1 Pages:3-4,37-38 The UE informs the base station regarding the feedback scheme (i.e. indication of the level of correlation) for the received signals).
Specifically for claims 31 and 34, Salem discloses an apparatus that includes a processor (Salem Fig.20 Page:40) and a memory (Salem Fig.20 Page:40).
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.
Claims 2-5,10,15-18,22,32-33 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem in view of KIM et al. (US 2010/0034114 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Kim”).
Regarding claims 2,16 and 32, Salem discloses the method for the UE, the method for the base station, the UE and the base station as explained in the claim 1. Salem does not explicitly disclose transmitting a report message indicating at least a portion of the channel state information based at least in part on whether the level of correlation between the channel state information satisfies a threshold.
However, Kim from the same field of invention discloses transmitting a report message indicating at least a portion of the channel state information based at least in part on whether the level of correlation between the channel state information satisfies a threshold (Kim Para[0039-40] The difference between CQI1 and CQI2 is less than a threshold then only one CQI is sent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Salem to have the feature of “transmitting a report message indicating at least a portion of the channel state information based at least in part on whether the level of correlation between the channel state information satisfies a threshold” as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been to reducing CQI reporting overhead (Kim Para[0003]).
Regarding claims 3,17 and 33, Salem discloses the method for the UE, the method for the base station, the UE and the base station as explained in the claim 1. Salem does not explicitly disclose wherein the report message indicates a subset of channel metrics from the channel state information, a single channel metric for a group of the channel state information, or each channel metric of the channel state information, wherein whether the report message comprises the subset of channel metrics, the single channel metric, or each channel metric is based at least in part on whether the level of correlation satisfies the threshold.
However, Kim from the same field of invention discloses wherein the report message indicates a subset of channel metrics from the channel state information (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), a single channel metric for a group of the channel state information (Kim Para[0039-40] Only one CQI is sent out of multiple), or each channel metric of the channel state information (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), wherein whether the report message comprises the subset of channel metrics (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim), the single channel metric, or each channel metric (Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim)is based at least in part on whether the level of correlation satisfies the threshold (Kim Para[0039-40] A difference between CQIs is equal or less than a predetermined value).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Salem to have the feature of “wherein the report message indicates a subset of channel metrics from the channel state information, a single channel metric for a group of the channel state information, or each channel metric of the channel state information, wherein whether the report message comprises the subset of channel metrics, the single channel metric, or each channel metric is based at least in part on whether the level of correlation satisfies the threshold” as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been to reducing CQI reporting overhead (Kim Para[0003]).
Regarding claims 4,15 and 35, Salem discloses the method for the UE, the method for the base station, the UE and the base station as explained in the claim 1. Salem does not explicitly disclose cancelling a report message for indicating the channel state information based at least in part on the level of correlation between the channel state information satisfying a threshold.
However, Kim from the same field of invention discloses cancelling a report message for indicating the channel state information based at least in part on the level of correlation between the channel state information satisfying a threshold (Kim Para[0039-40] The difference between CQI1 and CQI2 is higher than a threshold then all CQIs are sent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Salem to have the feature of “cancelling a report message for indicating the channel state information based at least in part on the level of correlation between the channel state information satisfying a threshold” as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been to reducing CQI reporting overhead (Kim Para[0003]).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, Salem discloses the method for the UE, the method for the base station, the UE and the base station as explained in the claim 1. Salem does not explicitly disclose transmitting the message comprising the indication of the level of correlation in a first stage uplink control information message, wherein the message indicates a report size for a second stage uplink control information message comprising at least a portion of channel state information.
However, Kim from the same field of invention discloses transmitting the message comprising the indication of the level of correlation in a first stage uplink control information message, wherein the message indicates a report size for a second stage uplink control information message comprising at least a portion of channel state information (Kim Para[0008,0054-58] The multiple uplink control channel transmissions for CQIs and TB size).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Salem to have the feature of “transmitting the message comprising the indication of the level of correlation in a first stage uplink control information message, wherein the message indicates a report size for a second stage uplink control information message comprising at least a portion of channel state information” as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been to reducing CQI reporting overhead (Kim Para[0003]).
Regarding claims 10 and 22, Salem discloses the method for the UE, the method for the base station, the UE and the base station as explained in the claim 1. Salem does not explicitly disclose wherein the level of correlation fails to satisfy a threshold, the method further comprising: transmitting a full report based at least in part on the level of correlation failing to satisfy the threshold.
However, Kim from the same field of invention discloses wherein the level of correlation fails to satisfy a threshold, the method further comprising: transmitting a full report based at least in part on the level of correlation failing to satisfy the threshold (Kim Para[0039-40] The CQI is not sent when it is bad and less than a threshold).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Salem to have the feature of “wherein the level of correlation fails to satisfy a threshold, the method further comprising: transmitting a full report based at least in part on the level of correlation failing to satisfy the threshold” as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been to reducing CQI reporting overhead (Kim Para[0003]).
Claims 6-7,9,19 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem in view of Kim and further in view of WU et al. (US 2022/0286257 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Wu”).
Regarding claim 6, Salem in view of Kim discloses the method for the UE, the method for the base station, the UE and the base station as explained in the claim 1. Salem in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the first stage uplink control information message indicates a same compression level for a plurality of second stage uplink control information messages within a window.
However, Wu from the same field of invention discloses wherein the first stage uplink control information message indicates a same compression level for a plurality of second stage uplink control information messages within a window (Wu Para[0028,0091,0096] A measurement time window for compressed CSI report).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Salem and Kim to have the feature of “wherein the first stage uplink control information message indicates a same compression level for a plurality of second stage uplink control information messages within a window” as taught by Wu. The motivation would have been to reduce resource consumption (Wu Para[0002]).
Regarding claim 7, Salem in view of Kim and Wu discloses the method for the UE, the method for the base station, the UE and the base station as explained in the claim 1. Wu further discloses receiving control signaling from the base station indicating a duration of the window (Wu Para[0028,0096-99] A measurement time window).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Salem and Kim to have the feature of “receiving control signaling from the base station indicating a duration of the window” as taught by Wu. The motivation would have been to reduce resource consumption (Wu Para[0002]).
Regarding claim 19, Salem in view of Kim discloses the method for the UE, the method for the base station, the UE and the base station as explained in the claim 1. Salem in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the first stage uplink control information message indicates a same compression level for a plurality of second stage uplink control information messages within a window, the method further comprising: transmitting control signaling to the UE indicating a duration of the window.
However, Wu from the same field of invention discloses wherein the first stage uplink control information message indicates a same compression level for a plurality of second stage uplink control information messages within a window, the method further comprising: transmitting control signaling to the UE indicating a duration of the window (Wu Para[0028,0091,0096-98] A measurement time window for compressed CSI report).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Salem and Kim to have the feature of “wherein the first stage uplink control information message indicates a same compression level for a plurality of second stage uplink control information messages within a window, the method further comprising: transmitting control signaling to the UE indicating a duration of the window” as taught by Wu. The motivation would have been to reduce resource consumption (Wu Para[0002]).
Regarding claims 9 and 21, Salem in view of Kim discloses the method for the UE, the method for the base station, the UE and the base station as explained in the claim 1. Kim further discloses wherein the level of correlation satisfies a threshold (Kim Para[0039-40] The difference between CQI1 and CQI2 is higher or less than a threshold).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Salem to have the feature of “wherein the level of correlation satisfies a threshold” as taught by Kim. The motivation would have been to reducing CQI reporting overhead (Kim Para[0003]).
Salem in view of Kim does not explicitly disclose the method further comprising: transmitting a compressed report based at least in part on the level of correlation satisfying the threshold; or cancelling a full report based at least in part on the level of correlation satisfying the threshold.
However, Wu from the same field of invention discloses the method further comprising: transmitting a compressed report based at least in part on the level of correlation satisfying the threshold (Wu Para[0028,0091,0096] A compressed CSI report meeting correlation); or cancelling a full report based at least in part on the level of correlation satisfying the threshold Not given patentable weight due to non-selective option in the claim).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Salem and Kim to have the feature of “wherein the level of correlation satisfies a threshold, the method further comprising: transmitting a compressed report based at least in part on the level of correlation satisfying the threshold” as taught by Wu. The motivation would have been to reduce resource consumption (Wu Para[0002]).
Claim 8 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem in view of PARKVALL et al. (US 2024/0430044 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Parkvall”).
Regarding claims 8 and 20, Salem discloses the method for the UE, the method for the base station, the UE and the base station as explained in the claim 1. Salem does not explicitly disclose receiving control signaling indicating a first set of resources associated with a compressed report for reporting the channel state information and a second set of resources associated with a full report for reporting the channel state information; and transmitting the compressed report via the first set of resources or the full report via the second set of resources, wherein whether the compressed report is transmitted via the first set of resources or the full report is transmitted via the second set of resources is based at least in part on the message comprising the indication.
However, Parkvall from the same field of invention discloses receiving control signaling indicating a first set of resources associated with a compressed report for reporting the channel state information and a second set of resources associated with a full report for reporting the channel state information; and transmitting the compressed report via the first set of resources or the full report via the second set of resources, wherein whether the compressed report is transmitted via the first set of resources or the full report is transmitted via the second set of resources is based at least in part on the message comprising the indication (Parkvall Para[0025,0081] The uplink resource sets for sending feedback for compressed or non-compressed (i.e. full) modes).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Salem to have the feature of “receiving control signaling indicating a first set of resources associated with a compressed report for reporting the channel state information and a second set of resources associated with a full report for reporting the channel state information; and transmitting the compressed report via the first set of resources or the full report via the second set of resources, wherein whether the compressed report is transmitted via the first set of resources or the full report is transmitted via the second set of resources is based at least in part on the message comprising the indication” as taught by Parkvall. The motivation would have been to indicate resource used for feedback (Parkvall Para[0002]).
Claims 11-13 and 23-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Salem in view of ZHOU et al. (US 2020/0136747 Al, hereinafter referred to as “Zhou”).
Regarding claims 11 and 23, Salem discloses the method for the UE, the method for the base station, the UE and the base station as explained in the claim 1. Salem does not explicitly disclose wherein the indication of the level of correlation corresponds to a first compression level of a plurality of compression levels.
However, Zhou from the same field of invention discloses wherein the indication of the level of correlation corresponds to a first compression level of a plurality of compression levels (Zhou Para[0185-187] The Compression index (i.e. level)).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Salem to have the feature of “wherein the indication of the level of correlation corresponds to a first compression level of a plurality of compression levels” as taught by Zhou. The motivation would have been to increase feedback accuracy (Zhou Para[0003]).
Regarding claims 12 and 24, Salem in view of Zhou discloses the method for the UE, the method for the base station, the UE and the base station as explained in the claim 1. Zhou further discloses receiving control signaling from the base station indicating the plurality of compression levels; and selecting the first compression level based at least in part on the level of correlation, wherein transmitting the message comprising the indication is based at least in part on the selecting (Zhou Para[0039-40,0191] The multiple compression index from the base station).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Salem to have the feature of “receiving control signaling from the base station indicating the plurality of compression levels; and selecting the first compression level based at least in part on the level of correlation, wherein transmitting the message comprising the indication is based at least in part on the selecting” as taught by Zhou. The motivation would have been to increase feedback accuracy (Zhou Para[0003]).
Regarding claims 13 and 25, Salem in view of Zhou discloses the method for the UE, the method for the base station, the UE and the base station as explained in the claim 1. Zhou further discloses wherein each of the plurality of compression levels corresponds to a respective resource, the respective resource having a size associated with a respective compression level of the plurality of compression levels (Zhou Para[0039-40] The MCS selected based compression a compression index).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Salem to have the feature of “wherein each of the plurality of compression levels corresponds to a respective resource, the respective resource having a size associated with a respective compression level of the plurality of compression levels” as taught by Zhou. The motivation would have been to increase feedback accuracy (Zhou Para[0003]).
Although specific columns, figures, reference numerals, lines of the reference(s), etc. have been referred to, Applicant should consider the entire applied prior art reference(s).
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 Sudesh M. Patidar whose telephone number is (571)272-2768. The examiner can normally be reached M-F:: 10AM-6:30PM ET.
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, Jeffrey Rutkowski can be reached at (571) 270-1215. 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.
/Sudesh M. Patidar/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2415
Prosecution Insights