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 .
Status of the Claims
Based on the current set of claims (Claims, 06 August 2026), Claims 1-12 and 16-23 are pending.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding the rejection of Claims 1-2, 4-5, 16, 18-20, and 21-22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant first alleges that Grant does not disclose, teach, or suggest to “receive a signaling indicating a first set of reference signal (RS), wherein a spatial domain filter associated with the first set of RS is on or off” (Remarks, 06 August 2026, Pg. 9-10, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2)) because “Grant nowhere characterizes that filter as on or off, nor ties any such state to its activation/deactivation field” (Remarks, 06 August 2026, Pg. 9-10, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2)).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The first issue is whether Grant discloses “signaling” that indicates “whether [a] spatial domain filter associated with a first set of RS is on or off” (Remarks, 06 August 2026, Pg. 9, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2)). Grant explicitly states that “a further control message” comprises “identification of at least one RS resource of the plurality of RS resources to be activated or deactivated” (Grant, ¶88) and further discloses that “[t]he further control message can also include, for each particular RS resource of the identified RS resources, an indication of the particular RS resource's spatial relation” (Grant, ¶88). With regard to Applicant’s argument that Grant does not disclose whether the spatial filter is “on” or “off”, Grant further discloses whether the spatial relation is on or off by disclosing whether the particular RS resource is activated or deactivated (Grant, ¶88). If the particular RS resource is activated, then the spatial relation corresponding to that particular RS resource is activated or on. If the particular RS resource is deactivated, then the spatial relationship corresponding to that particular resource is deactivated. Here, the activation or deactivation of a particular resource requires that the spatial filter is active/on or inactive/off respectively. Furthermore, the combination of the “control message” and the “further control message” is correlated to “signaling” of Applicant’s claim; and the particular RS resources, where the particular RS resource’s spatial relation and the particular RS resource’s activation has been indicated, is correlated to “the first set of RS” of Applicant’s claims.
With regard to Applicant’s argument that Grant does not disclose Applicant’s signaling comprising an indication of a first set of reference signal (RS) and does not disclose “a spatial domain filter associated with the first set of RS is on or off” (Remarks, 06 August 2026, Pg. 9-10, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2)), Examiner maintains the current ground of rejection.
Applicant then alleges that Grant does not disclose, teach, or suggest to “determine a second set of RS based on the signaling” (Remarks, 06 August 2026, Pg. 9-10, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2)) because “that paragraph and block 1210 of Fig. 12 describes only one operation” (Remarks, 06 August 2026, Pg. 9-10, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2)). The second issue is whether Grant discloses that a second set of RS can be “determined” from the control message and the further control message of Grant. Grant discloses a first group of RS resources that are activated and have a corresponding spatial filter, and Grant also discloses a second group of RS resources that are deactivated and have a corresponding spatial filter. Here, the “control message” and the “further control message” indicate two distinct groups. Furthermore, the first group of RS resource and the second group of RS resources are different as Applicant requires; however, Applicant’s claim language does not indicate that the “first set of RS” and the “second set of RS” are different.
Applicant finally alleges that Grant does not disclose that “the second set of RS comprises one of a set of RS associated with channels state information (CSI) reporting” (Remarks, 06 August 2026, Pg. 11, Rejections Under 35 U.S.C. §102(a)(2)).
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
The issue is whether Grant discloses the use of reference signals in a channel state information (CSI) reporting activity. Grant discloses that the set of RSs may be used for channel state information (CSI) to determine an appropriate beam pair link (BPL) (Grant, ¶17 & Fig. 1). Furthermore, Applicant has provided a disjunctive list (a list separated by “or”), thus Examiner is only required to show an element of the list. 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). While Examiner has agreed to Applicant’s arguments concerning “pathloss”, the current ground of rejection is maintained because Examiner has shown that Grant discloses that a use for the reference signal includes CSI reporting (Grant, ¶17 & Fig. 1).
Examiner maintains the current ground of 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)(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, 4-5, 16, 18-20, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Grant et al. (US 20200351069 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Grant”).
Regarding Claim 1, Grant discloses a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, the UE comprising:
at least one memory (¶99-108 & Fig. 15, Grant discloses a user equipment (UE) comprising a program memory 1520 and a data memory 1530);
at least one receiving circuitry (¶99-108 & Fig. 15, Grant discloses the UE further comprising the transceiver 1540);
at least one transmitting circuitry (¶99-108 & Fig. 15, Grant discloses the UE further comprising the transceiver 1540); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one receiving circuitry and the at least one transmitting circuitry (¶99-108 & Fig. 15, Grant discloses the UE further comprising a processor 1510 coupled to the program memory 1520, the data memory 1530, and the transceiver 1540), wherein the at least one processor is configured to:
receive, via the at least one receiving circuitry, a signaling indicating a first set of reference signal (RS) (¶87 & Fig. 12 (1210), Grant discloses receiving, by the UE from a network node (NN), one or more control messages indicating a plurality of reference signal (RS) resources),
wherein a spatial domain filter associated with the first set of RS is on or off (¶87 & Fig. 12 (1210), Grant discloses receiving, by the UE from a network node (NN), a further control message indicating a particular RS resource's spatial relation and an identification of at least one RS resource as activated. Examiner correlates the first set of RS to "at least one RS resource as activated". Examiner correlates the one or more control message and the further control message to "the signaling"); and
determine a second set of RS based on the signaling (¶87 & Fig. 12 (1210), Grant discloses determining, by the UE, that the further control message indicates a particular RS resource's spatial relation and an identification of the at least one RS resource as deactivated. Examiner correlates "at least one resource as deactivated" to "a second set of RS"),
wherein the second set of RS comprises a set of RS associated with channel state information (CSI) reporting (¶17, Grant discloses that the activated set of RSs may be used for channel state information (CSI)), or a set of pathloss RS, or a set of RS associated with radio link monitoring (RLM), or a set of RS associated with beam failure recovery (BFR).
Regarding Claim 2, Grant discloses the UE according to claim 1.
Grant further discloses the second set of RS is a set of RS associated with CSI reporting to be measured (¶17, Grant discloses that the activated set of RSs may be used for channel state information (CSI)), and
the spatial domain filter associated with at least one RS of the second set of RS is off (¶87 & Fig. 12 (1210), Grant discloses determining, by the UE, that the further control message indicates an identification of the at least one RS resource as deactivated. Here, the spatial relation is not used when the RS resource corresponding to the spatial relation is indicated as deactivated); and
the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to
exclude the at least one RS from the second set of RS (¶91 & Fig. 12 (1230), Grant discloses not performing, by the UE, a procedure involving the at least one RS resource indicated as deactivated).
Regarding Claim 4, Grant discloses the UE according to claim 1.
Grant further discloses the second set of RS is a set of RS associated with CSI reporting (¶17, Grant discloses that the activated set of RSs may be used for channel state information (CSI)) where at least one resource index will be reported (¶6 & ¶18, Grant discloses that the CSI report will include at least one RS index), and
the spatial domain filter associated with at least one RS of the second set of RS is off (¶87 & Fig. 12 (1210), Grant discloses determining, by the UE, that the further control message indicates an identification of the at least one RS resource as deactivated. Here, the spatial relation is not used when the RS resource corresponding to the spatial relation is indicated as deactivated); and
the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to
exclude the at least one RS index from a set of RS index for CSI reporting; or
exclude the at least one RS from the second set of RS (¶91 & Fig. 12 (1230), Grant discloses not performing, by the UE, a procedure involving the at least one RS resource indicated as deactivated).
Regarding Claim 5, Grant discloses the UE according to claim 1.
Grant further discloses the second set of RS is a set of RS associated with CSI reporting (¶17, Grant discloses that the activated set of RSs may be used for channel state information (CSI)) where CSI will be based on a CSI resource (¶6 & ¶18, Grant discloses that the CSI report will be based upon an RS resource for CSI measurement), and the spatial domain filter associated with the CSI resource is off (¶87 & Fig. 12 (1210), Grant discloses determining, by the UE , that the further control message indicates an identification of the at least one RS resource as deactivated. Here, the spatial relation is not used when the RS resource corresponding to the spatial relation is indicated as deactivated); and
the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to perform one of:
stop reporting the CSI (¶91 & Fig. 12 (1230), Grant discloses not performing, by the UE, a procedure involving the at least one RS resource indicated as deactivated. Here, if the resource is deactivated, then the CSI measurement will not occur, and the CSI report will not include a measurement corresponding to the deactivated resource); or
report the CSI with a reserved or predefined value.
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 1.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 4.
Regarding Claim 21, Grant discloses a base station for wireless communication, the base station comprising:
at least one memory (¶109-114 & Fig. 16, Grant discloses a network node (NN) comprising a program memory 1620 and a data memory 1630);
at least one receiving circuitry (¶109-114 & Fig. 16, Grant discloses the NN further comprising the radio network interface 1640);
at least one transmitting circuitry (¶109-114 & Fig. 16, Grant discloses the NN further comprising the radio network interface 1640); and
at least one processor coupled to the at least one memory, the at least one receiving
circuitry, and the at least one transmitting circuitry (¶109-114 & Fig. 16, Grant discloses the NN further comprising a processor 1610 coupled to the program memory 1620, the data memory 1630, and the radio network interface 1640), wherein the at least one processor is configured to cause the base station to:
transmit, via the at least one transmitting circuitry, a signaling indicating a first set
of reference signal (RS) (¶87 & Fig. 12 (1210), Grant discloses transmitting, to a user equipment (UE) from the NN, one or more control messages indicating a plurality of reference signal (RS) resources), wherein a spatial domain filter associated with the first set of RS is on or off (¶87 & Fig. 12 (1210), Grant discloses receiving, by the UE from a network node (NN), a further control message indicating a particular RS resource's spatial relation and an identification of at least one RS resource as activated. Examiner correlates the first set of RS to "at least one RS resource as activated". Examiner correlates the one or more control message and the further control message to "the signaling"); and
determine a second set of RS based on the signaling (¶87 & Fig. 12 (1210), Grant discloses determining, by the UE, that the further control message indicates a particular RS resource's spatial relation and an identification of the at least one RS resource as deactivated. Examiner correlates "at least one resource as deactivated" to "a second set of RS"), wherein the second set of RS is a set of RS associated with channel state information (CSI) reporting(¶17, Grant discloses that the activated set of RSs may be used for channel state information (CSI)), or a set of pathloss RS, or a set of RS associated with radio link monitoring (RLM), or a set of RS associated with beam failure recovery (BFR).
Regarding Claim 22, Claim 22 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 5.
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 3, 17, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant in view of Mazzarese et al. (US 20150063287 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Mazzarese”).
Regarding Claim 3, Grant discloses the UE according to claim 1.
Grant further discloses wherein:
the second set of RS is a set of RS associated with CSI reporting where CSI measurement (¶17, Grant discloses that the activated set of RSs may be used for channel state information (CSI)).
the spatial domain filter associated with at least one RS of the second set of RS is off (¶87 & Fig. 12 (1210), Grant discloses determining, by the UE, that the further control message indicates an identification of the at least one RS resource as deactivated. Here, the spatial relation is not used when the RS resource corresponding to the spatial relation is indicated as deactivated); and
the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to
exclude the at least one RS from the second set of RS (¶91 & Fig. 12 (1230), Grant discloses not performing, by the UE, a procedure involving the at least one RS resource indicated as deactivated).
However, Grant does not disclose that the CSI measurement will be averaged.
Massarese, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches that the CSI measurement will be averaged (Claim 19, Mazzarese discloses that the CSI report comprises an average of all antenna ports for a particular resource).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant by requiring that the CSI measurement will be averaged as taught by Mazzarese because reporting reference signal received power via a CSI report is improved by saving overhead for reporting the RSRP (Mazzarese, Abstract).
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 2 and Claim 3.
Regarding Claim 23, Claim 23 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 17.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grant in view of Matsumura et al. (US 20230319608 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Matsumura”).
Regarding Claim 11, Grant discloses the UE according to claim 1.
Grant further discloses wherein:
the spatial domain filter associated with at least one RS of the second set of RS is off (¶87 & Fig. 12 (1210), Grant discloses determining, by the UE, that the further control message indicates an identification of the at least one RS resource as deactivated. Here, the spatial relation is not used when the RS resource corresponding to the spatial relation is indicated as deactivated).
However, Grant does not explicitly disclose the second set of RS is one of a set of RLM RS or a set of RS associated with BFR, and the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to exclude the at least one RS from the second set of RS.
Matsumura, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches the second set of RS is one of a set of RLM RS or a set of RS associated with BFR (¶176-180 & Fig. 12B, Matsumura discloses a set of resources for radio resource management (RLM) as deactivated set of resources), and the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to exclude the at least one RS from the second set of RS (¶176-180 & Fig. 12B, Matsumura discloses excluding at least one deactivated resource from measurement).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Grant by requiring that the second set of RS is one of a set of RLM RS or a set of RS associated with BFR, and the at least one processor is configured to cause the UE to exclude the at least one RS from the second set of RS as taught by Matsumura because CSI measurement is improved by using CSI resources more efficiently (Matsumura, ¶5-7).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-10 and 12 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Internet Communication
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
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 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
Prosecution Insights