DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7-9, 11, 15, 17-18, 20, 23-25, 27, 31, 35-37, and 39 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9, 11, 15, 25, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
As per claims 9 and 25, the limitations: “the first magnitude coefficient comprises at least one second magnitude coefficient, and is a product of the at least one second magnitude coefficient” and “the first phase coefficient comprises at least one second phase coefficient, and is a product of the at least one second phase coefficient” is indefinite. It is generally not clear what Applicant means by a ‘first coefficient’ comprises, and is a product of, ‘a second coefficient’. For the purpose of this office action the Examiner is interpreting the claim to read:
“…wherein the first magnitude coefficient is a product of [[the]] at least one second magnitude coefficient; or
the first phase coefficient is a product of [[the]] at least one second phase coefficient.”
Claims 11, 15, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) based on their dependency to claims 9 or 25.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, 17, 35, 36, 37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoo et al. (US 2021/0273707)(“Yoo”).
As per claim 1, Yoo teaches a method for reporting information, performed by a terminal (i.e., UE, see ¶0064), comprising:
sending first channel state information to a network device (i.e., base station, Id.), wherein the first channel state information comprises difference information relative to second channel state information (i.e., “only a changed part of the CSI”, Id.), and a sending time of the second channel state information is earlier than a sending time of the first channel state information time (i.e., “compared to a previous CSI”, Id.).
Claims 17, 35, 36, 37, and 39 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2, 4, 8, 18, 20, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoo, in further view of Wu et al. (US 2020/0059282)(“Wu”).
As per claim 2, Yoo does not expressly teach wherein the first channel state information further comprises at least one of first indication information, second indication information or third indication information,
wherein the first indication information indicates that the second channel state information is Nth information before the first channel state information, where N is an integer greater than 0;
wherein the second indication information indicates whether a beam corresponding to the first channel state information is same as a beam corresponding to the second channel state information; and,
wherein the third indication information indicates whether a frequency-domain base vector corresponding to the first channel state information is same as a frequency-domain base vector corresponding to the second channel state information.
Nevertheless, in the same art of CSI reporting/updating, Wu teaches transmitting channel state information (CSI) feedback in stages (e.g., “stage 1 to stage m”, see ¶0123), and subsequently sending updated CSI feedback (i.e., “first channel state information”) indicating the particular CSI reporting stage corresponding to the updated CSI feedback (see ¶0133, and for example, ¶0137, i.e., “the UE may feedback a CSI indicator (CI) of x in a subsequent CSI feedback report …” and/or ¶0141, i.e., “…sends an update of the 2nd CSI feedback report with a CI=2, to the BS”, where the CSI indicator (CI) reads on “Nth information before the first channel state information, where N is an integer greater than 0”), and the updated CSI feedback further includes relevant beam information including their associated coefficients (see for example, ¶0133, read as “second indication information indicating whether a beam corresponding to the first channel state information is same as a beam corresponding to the second channel state information”).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to indicate, in the changed part of the CSI feedback in Yoo (see ¶0063), first information indicating “Nth information” with respect to the particular stage the update is with respect to and/or indicating the beams relevant to the changed part of the CSI (i.e., second information). The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to take advantage of Yoo’s smaller size CSI feedback to update enhanced type-II CSI feedback information.
As per claim 4, Yoo does not teach, but in the same art as noted above, Wu further teaches wherein the beam corresponding to the first channel state information is different from the beam corresponding to the second channel state information (i.e., “beam replacement during subsequent CSI feedback stages may also be supported”, see ¶0132, which implies a different beam corresponding to the subsequent CSI feedback/first channel state information), the first channel state information further comprises the beam corresponding to the first channel state information, wherein the beam corresponding to the first channel state information is indicated by at least one of a parameter related to a number of antenna ports or a number of oversamplings (e.g., “beam index”, see ¶0132, which is impliedly related to both a number of antenna ports and oversampling factors, also see for example, ¶0092, i.e., “the set of L beams may be selected from a set of oversampled 2D-DFT beams”).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Yoo and Wu in claim 2 applies equally well to claim 4.
As per claim 8, Yoo does not teach wherein the first channel state information further comprises at least one of: a first magnitude coefficient corresponding to at least one of a selected beam or frequency-domain base vector; or
a first phase coefficient corresponding to at least one of a selected beam and/or frequency- domain base vector.
Nevertheless, in the same art as noted above, Wu teaches updating enhanced type-II CSI feedback information including at least one of: a first magnitude or phase coefficient corresponding to at least one of a selected beam (i.e., amplitude or phase for selected beams, see ¶0133, i.e., “the beams including their associated coefficients (e.g., WB/SB amplitude scaling factors, phase) may be updated together…”).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Yoo and Wu in claim 2 applies equally well to claim 8.
Claims 18, 20, and 24 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 2, 4, and 8 since they recite substantially identical subject matter. Any differences between the claims do not result in patentably distinct claims and all of the limitations are taught by the above cited art.
Claims 7 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoo and Wu, in further view of Wu et al. (US 2022/0094504)(“Wu ‘504”).
As per claims 7 and 23, the combination of Yoo and Wu fails to teach wherein the frequency-domain base vector corresponding to the first channel state information is different from the frequency-domain base vector corresponding to the second channel state information, the first channel state information further comprises the frequency-domain base vector corresponding to the first channel state information.
Nevertheless, indicating frequency-domain base vector information using enhanced type-II CSI feedback information was well known in the art prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention (see for example, Wu ‘504, Fig. 5, and ¶0127).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date to modify the teachings of Yoo and Wu, with the teachings of Wu ‘504 for using the smaller size CSI feedback in Yoo (see ¶0064) to updated frequency-domain base vector information (i.e., “wherein the frequency-domain base vector corresponding to the first channel state information is different from the frequency-domain base vector corresponding to the second channel state information”). Similar to the motivation for combining Yoo and Wu in claim 2 above, the obvious motivation for using the smaller size CSI feedback in Yoo (see ¶0064) to updated frequency-domain base vector information would have been to save power, and processing and signaling resources (see Yoo, ¶0064), when updating enhanced type-II CSI feedback information (e.g., frequency-domain base vector information).
Claims 9, 11, 25, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Yoo and Wu, in further view of Gao et al. (WO 2021/017571)(“Gao”).
As per claims 9 and 25, the combination of Yoo and Wu fails to teach wherein the first magnitude coefficient comprises at least one second magnitude coefficient, and is a product of the at least one second magnitude coefficient; the first phase coefficient comprises at least one second phase coefficient, and is a product of the at least one second phase coefficient.
Nevertheless, in the same art of CSI reporting, Gao teaches a system for type II CSI reporting wherein a magnitude coefficient/component is reported using a space-frequency combination coefficient which is a product of a reference and differential coefficient (i.e., second magnitude coefficient, see for example pp. 7 of the attached machine translation, i.e., “the size of the amplitude component of a space-frequency combination coefficient is equal to the product of the size of the reference amplitude of the space-frequency combination coefficient and the size of the differential amplitude of the space-frequency combination coefficient”).
It would have obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, prior to the earliest effective filing date of the claimed invention, to similar use the space-frequency combination coefficient as taught by Gao to represent the first channel state information in the combination of Yoo and Wu. The obvious motivation for doing so would have been to further reduce signal overhead for type II CSI reporting.
As per claims 11 and 27, Yoo and Wu both teach reporting an amplitude/magnitude coefficient for both narrowband/subband and wideband (see ¶0056, Yoo and Wu, ¶0109).
As noted above, the combination of Yoo and Wu, however, fails to teach the narrowband/subband and wideband amplitude/magnitude coefficient being based on a second amplitude/magnitude coefficient (i.e., “wherein the at least one second magnitude coefficient comprises at least one a wideband magnitude or a narrowband coefficient”), and further “wherein the at least one second magnitude coefficient comprises at least one of: a time point reference magnitude, a polarization reference magnitude, or a frequency-domain base vector magnitude.”
Nevertheless, in the same art as noted above, Gao teaches reporting a magnitude coefficient/component using a space-frequency combination coefficient which is a product of a reference or base amplitude/magnitude space-frequency combination coefficient (read as a second magnitude coefficient “comprising at least a …. frequency-domain base vector magnitude”, see for example pp. 7 of the attached machine translation, “the size of the amplitude component of a space-frequency combination coefficient is equal to the product of the size of the reference amplitude of the space-frequency combination coefficient and the size of the differential amplitude of the space-frequency combination coefficient”).
The same motivation that was utilized for combining Yoo and Wu in claims 9 and 25 applies equally well to claims 11 and 27.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15 and 31, though rejected under 35 U.S.C. §112(b) (see above), for purpose of 35 U.S.C. §102 and §103, 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure (see PTO 892).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Brendan Higa whose telephone number is (571)272-5823. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, James Hwang can be reached at (571) 272-4036. 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.
/BRENDAN Y HIGA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2447
Prosecution Insights