CTNF 18/718,653 CTNF 91690 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statements (IDS) were submitted on 11 June 2024, 23 January 2026, and 17 March 2026. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-12-aia AIA (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. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim(s) 1-3, 6, 11, 15-17, 20, 25, and 28-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Venugopal et al. US 2021/0194558 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Venugopal”). Note: Venugopal was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 23 January 2026 . As to claim 1 , Venugopal teaches an apparatus for wireless communication (¶¶48 and 86; figures 3 and 5), comprising: a memory (¶52; figure 3); and a processor coupled to the memory (¶¶50-53; figure 3), the processor being configured to: receive a channel state information (CSI) report setting indicating to report precoding matrix indicator (PMI) feedback determined based on a codebook corresponding to a combination of time-division multiplexed CSI reference signal (CSI-RS) or synchronization signal block (SSB) resources (¶¶70, 88-89, and 94; figure 5: receive beam management configuration to report CSI including PMI derived from time division multiplexed CSI-RS/SSB resources), and report CSI with the PMI feedback associated with one or more resources in the time-division multiplexed CSI-RS or SSB resources (¶104; figure 5: generate and report CSI including PMI determined from the time division multiplexed CSI-RS/SSB resources). As to claim 2 , Venugopal teaches the apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a transceiver coupled to the processor and the memory, wherein the transceiver is configured to receive the CSI report setting and report the CSI (¶49; figure 3); and wherein the PMI feedback, as determined based on the codebook, includes: feedback associated with one or more subsets of the CSI-RS or SSB resources selected for the PMI feedback; quantized combination coefficients of the CSI-RS or SSB resources; a combined reference signal received power (RSRP) or a combined signal-to-interference-plus-noise ratio (SINR) for the combination of the CSI-RS or SSB resources; or any combination thereof (¶¶67-68, 89, 92, and 103-104; figure 5: one or more feedbacks). As to claim 3 , Venugopal teaches the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor is further configured to receive one or more resource settings identifying the CSI-RS or SSB resources associated with the CSI report setting (¶¶88-90; figure 5). As to claim 6 , Venugopal teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the PMI feedback indicates the one or more subsets of the CSI-RS or SSB resources selected for the PMI feedback through: an indication of components within a matrix as the one or more subsets of the CSI-RS or SSB resources, wherein different components within the matrix identify different CSI-RS or SSB resources; resource indicators for resources in the one or more subsets of the CSI-RS or SSB resources; or any combination thereof (¶¶92 and 102-104; figure 5: indicate resources). As to claim 11 , Venugopal teaches the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the processor is further configured to process the CSI in compliance with a threshold for simultaneous CSI calculations, wherein a number for the simultaneous CSI calculations associated with the CSI report setting is based at least in part on: a number of the CSI-RS or SSB resources, a periodicity of the CSI-RS or SSB resources, a number of resources in the one or more subsets, a ratio of a total number of resources in the one or more subsets to a total number of the CSI-RS or SSB resources, a number of subbands or a size of subbands associated with the CSI report setting, a number of frequency domain compression bases associated with the CSI report setting, or any combination thereof (¶¶92, 98, and 104-106; figure 5: one or more resources). As to claim 15 , claim 15 is rejected the same way as claim 1. As to claim 16 , claim 16 is rejected the same way as claim 2. As to claim 17 , claim 17 is rejected the same way as claim 3. As to claim 20 , claim 20 is rejected the same way as claim 6. As to claim 25 , claim 25 is rejected the same way as claim 11. As to claim 28 , claim 28 is rejected the same way as claim 1. As to claim 29 , claim 29 is rejected the same way as claim 2. As to claim 30 , claim 30 is rejected the same way as claim 1 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim (s) 4, 12-14, 18, and 26-27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Venugopal in view of Chavva et al. US 2021/0351885 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Chavva”). Note: Chavva was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 17 March 2026 . As to claim 4 , Venugopal teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Although Venugopal teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” Venugopal does not explicitly disclose “the CSI report…SSB resources”. However, Chavva teaches the CSI report setting further indicates that the PMI feedback includes one or more past measurements or one or more future predictions based on the CSI-RS or SSB resources (¶¶83, 91, 149, and 155). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Venugopal by including “the CSI report…SSB resources” as taught by Chavva because it provides Venugopal’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of determining a more optimal resource allocation and reporting periodicity (Chavva, ¶¶83, 91, 149, and 155). As to claim 12 , Venugopal teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Although Venugopal teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” Venugopal does not explicitly disclose “the CSI report setting identifies the codebook via a particular codebook type”. However, Chavva teaches the CSI report setting identifies the codebook via a particular codebook type (¶¶117 and 120). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Venugopal by including “the CSI report setting identifies the codebook via a particular codebook type” as taught by Chavva because it provides Venugopal’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of accurate CSI reporting (Chavva, ¶¶117 and 120). As to claim 13 , Venugopal teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Although Venugopal teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” Venugopal does not explicitly disclose “the processor…learning models”. However, Chavva teaches the processor is further configured to: receive signaling indicating one or more machine learning models for processing the PMI feedback; and report the CSI comprises processing the PMI feedback using the one or more machine learning models (¶¶81-90, 93, 95, 98-100, 116, 154, and 185). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Venugopal by including “the processor…learning models” as taught by Chavva because it provides Venugopal’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of determining a more optimal resource allocation and reporting periodicity (Chavva, ¶¶81-90, 93, 95, 98-100, 116, 154, and 185). As to claim 14 , Venugopal in view of Chavva teaches the apparatus of claim 13. Chavva further teaches the processor is further configured to: determine matrix components defined by the codebook using the one or more machine learning models with input including the CSI-RS or SSB resources or one or more channels estimated based on the CSI-RS or SSB resources, wherein the one or more machine learning models are based on neural networks or kernel-based methods (¶¶81-90, 93, 95, 98-100, 116, 154, and 185). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Venugopal in view of Chavva by including “the processor…kernel-based methods” as further taught by Chavva for the same rationale as set forth in claim 13 (Chavva, ¶¶81-90, 93, 95, 98-100, 116, 154, and 185). As to claim 18 , claim 18 is rejected the same way as claim 4. As to claim 26 , claim 26 is rejected the same way as claim 12. As to claim 27 , claim 27 is rejected the same way as claim 13 . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-02-aia AIA Claim s 5, 7-10, 19, and 21-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Venugopal in view of Hao et al. WO 2021/068149 A1 (hereinafter referred to as “Hao”). Note: Hao was cited by the applicant in the IDS received 17 March 2026 . 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). As to claim 5 , Venugopal teaches the apparatus of claim 2. Although Venugopal teaches “The apparatus of claim 2,” Venugopal does not explicitly disclose “the quantized combination…combination thereof”. However, Hao teaches the quantized combination coefficients are based on: a wideband-specific linear combination associated with resources in the one or more subsets, a subband-specific linear combination associated with resources in the one or more subsets, a frequency domain compression of a subband-specific linear combination associated with resources in the one or more subsets, or any combination thereof (¶¶103-106; figures 5-6: one or more combinations associated with the subsets). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Venugopal by including “the quantized combination…combination thereof” as taught by Hao because it provides Venugopal’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of providing flexible port selection (Hao, ¶¶87-88 and 103-106; figures 5-6). As to claim 7 , Venugopal teaches the apparatus of claim 1. Although Venugopal teaches “The apparatus of claim 1,” Venugopal does not explicitly disclose “the processor…SSB resources”. However, Hao teaches the processor is further configured to receive signaling that indicates one or more constraints associated with the codebook on whether one or more linear combinations are applied in the PMI feedback to one or more of the CSI-RS or SSB resources (¶¶103-106; figures 5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Venugopal by including “the processor…SSB resources” as taught by Hao because it provides Venugopal’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of providing flexible port selection (Hao, ¶¶87-88 and 103-106; figures 5-6). As to claim 8 , Venugopal in view of Hao teaches the apparatus of claim 7. Hao further teaches the one or more constraints include: a first constraint that: a first subset of the CSI-RS or SSB resources are to be linearly combined in the PMI feedback, a second subset of the CSI-RS or SSB resources are to be linearly combined in the PMI feedback, and a first resource in the first subset and a second resource in the second subset are not allowed to be linearly combined in the PMI feedback; a second constraint that, for a subband-specific linear combination PMI report or a frequency domain-compressed subband-specific linear combination PMI report, different subbands comprise different constraints; a third constraint that, for the subband-specific linear combination PMI report or the frequency domain-compressed subband-specific linear combination PMI report, different subbands comprise a same constraint; or any combination thereof (¶¶87-106; figures 5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Venugopal in view of Hao by including “the one or more…combination thereof” as further taught by Hao for the same rationale as set forth in claim 7 (Hao, ¶¶87-88 and 103-106; figures 5-6: one or more constraints). As to claim 9 , Venugopal teaches the apparatus of claim 2. Although Venugopal teaches “The apparatus of claim 2,” Venugopal does not explicitly disclose “the processor…PMI feedback”. However, Hao teaches the processor is further configured to receive signaling that indicates one or more constraints associated with the codebook on amplitudes of linear combination coefficients associated with one or more of the CSI- RS or SSB resources selected for the PMI feedback (¶¶103-106; figures 5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Venugopal by including “the processor…PMI feedback” as taught by Hao because it provides Venugopal’s apparatus with the enhanced capability of providing flexible port selection (Hao, ¶¶87-88 and 103-106; figures 5-6). As to claim 10 , Venugopal in view of Hao teaches the apparatus of claim 9. Hao further teaches the one or more constraints include that a total combined power or an average power for a subset of the CSI-RS or SSB resources is greater than a first threshold or less than a second threshold (¶¶87-106; figures 5-6). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to improve upon the apparatus described in Venugopal in view of Hao by including “the one or more…second threshold” as further taught by Hao for the same rationale as set forth in claim 9 (Hao, ¶¶87-88 and 103-106; figures 5-6). As to claim 19 , claim 19 is rejected the same way as claim 5. As to claim 21 , claim 21 is rejected the same way as claim 7. As to claim 22 , claim 22 is rejected the same way as claim 8. As to claim 23 , claim 23 is rejected the same way as claim 9. As to claim 24 , claim 24 is rejected the same way as claim 10 . This rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 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); 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 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. See generally MPEP § 717.02. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN T VAN ROIE whose telephone number is (571)270-0308. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00am - 4:30pm. 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, Ian N Moore can be reached at 571-272-3085. 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. /JUSTIN T VAN ROIE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/718,653 Page 2 Art Unit: 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/718,653 Page 4 Art Unit: 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/718,653 Page 5 Art Unit: 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/718,653 Page 6 Art Unit: 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/718,653 Page 7 Art Unit: 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/718,653 Page 9 Art Unit: 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/718,653 Page 10 Art Unit: 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/718,653 Page 11 Art Unit: 2469 Application/Control Number: 18/718,653 Page 12 Art Unit: 2469
