DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Remarks
This Office action is considered fully responsive to the amendments filed 07/21/2026.
The previous specification objection is withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The previous claim objections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
The previous Double Patenting rejections are withdrawn in light of Applicant’s amendments.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed 07/21/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-7, 9-14, 16-17 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20110205951 A1.
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 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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0205951 A1 to Lee et al. (“Lee”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2012/0127869 A1 to Yin et al. (“Yin”) [cited in 06/03/2024 IDS].
As to claim 1, Lee discloses a method of controlling channel quality indicator measurements for wireless communication (para. 0004), the method comprising:
transmitting a channel quality indicator request from a base station via a cell-specific reference signal in a downlink subframe to trigger a channel quality indicator measurement (para. 0004, In a current Third Generation Partnership Project Long Term Evolution (3GPP LTE) Rel-8 system, a cell-specific reference signal (RS) may need to be transmitted to all subframes of a downlink. By using the cell-specific RS, an LTE Rel-8 terminal may measure a Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) to report the measured CQI to the base station. Also, the LTE Rel-8 terminal may perform a channel estimation using the cell-specific RS so as to demodulate data.);
receiving the channel quality indicator request at a user equipment (para. 0004, In a current Third Generation Partnership Project Long Term Evolution (3GPP LTE) Rel-8 system, a cell-specific reference signal (RS) may need to be transmitted to all subframes of a downlink. By using the cell-specific RS, an LTE Rel-8 terminal may measure a Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) to report the measured CQI to the base station. Also, the LTE Rel-8 terminal may perform a channel estimation using the cell-specific RS so as to demodulate data.);
making a channel quality measurement at the user equipment from the channel quality indicator request (para. 0004, In a current Third Generation Partnership Project Long Term Evolution (3GPP LTE) Rel-8 system, a cell-specific reference signal (RS) may need to be transmitted to all subframes of a downlink. By using the cell-specific RS, an LTE Rel-8 terminal may measure a Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) to report the measured CQI to the base station. Also, the LTE Rel-8 terminal may perform a channel estimation using the cell-specific RS so as to demodulate data.); and
transmitting a channel quality indicator response from the user equipment (para. 0004, In a current Third Generation Partnership Project Long Term Evolution (3GPP LTE) Rel-8 system, a cell-specific reference signal (RS) may need to be transmitted to all subframes of a downlink. By using the cell-specific RS, an LTE Rel-8 terminal may measure a Channel Quality Indicator (CQI) to report the measured CQI to the base station. Also, the LTE Rel-8 terminal may perform a channel estimation using the cell-specific RS so as to demodulate data.)
Lee does not expressly disclose via a Physical Uplink Control CHannel on an uplink subframe.
Yin discloses CQI for particular cell, pertaining to UE (fig. 1, para. 0073), downlink and uplink transmission occur over subframes (para. 0050), CQI is measured at UE (para. 0104), and CSI which contains CQI is reported by UE after a request from eNode B; channel state information (CSI) report may be transmitted on the physical uplink control channel (PUCCH) (para. 0040-0041, 0073).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate CQI as taught by Yin into the invention of Lee. The suggestion/motivation would have been to report uplink control information by a UE (Yin, para. 0023). Including the CQI as taught by Yin into the invention of Lee was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of Yin.
Claims 2-7, 9-14, 16-17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over U.S. 2011/0205951 A1 to Lee et al. (“Lee”) in view of U.S. Publication No. 2012/0127869 A1 to Yin et al. (“Yin”) [cited in 06/03/2024 IDS] and in further view of "3GPP TS 36.213 version 8.8.0 Release 8” (“3GPP”) [cited in 06/03/2024 IDS].
As to claim 2, Lee and Yin do not expressly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein: transmitting the channel quality
indicator request is periodic with each transmission occurring on a subframe
having the smallest value nCQI_ref greater than or equal to 4 and corresponding to
a valid downlink subframe.
3GPP discloses for periodic CQI reporting, nCQI_ref is the smallest value greater than or equal to 4, such that it corresponds to a valid downlink subframe (page 47-48).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate nCQI_ref as taught by 3GPP into the invention of Lee and Yin. The suggestion/motivation would have been to define a CQI reference resource in the time domain (3GPP, page 47-48). Including the nCQI_ref as taught by 3GPP into the invention of Lee and Yin was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of 3GPP.
As to claim 3, Lee and Yin do not expressly disclose the method of claim 2, wherein: a valid downlink subframe is a subframe configured as a downlink subframe at the user equipment.
3GPP discloses at pages 47-48, downlink subframe is valid if it is configured as a downlink subframe for that UE.
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the downlink subframe as taught by 3GPP into the invention of Lee and Yin. The suggestion/motivation would have been to establish the characteristics of the physicals layer procedures in FDD and TDD modes of E-UTRA (3GPP, page 6). Including the downlink subframe as taught by 3GPP into the invention of Lee and Yin was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of 3GPP.
As to claim 4, Lee and Yin do not expressly disclose the method of claim 2, wherein: a valid downlink subframe is not a
Multimedia Broadcast multicast service Single Frequency Network subframe.
3GPP discloses at pages 47-48, valid subframe is not an MBSFN subframe.
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the Multimedia Broadcast multicast service Single Frequency Network subframe as taught by 3GPP into the invention of Lee and Yin. The suggestion/motivation would have been to establish the characteristics of the physicals layer procedures in FDD and TDD modes of E-UTRA (3GPP, page 6). Including the Multimedia Broadcast multicast service Single Frequency Network subframe as taught by 3GPP into the invention of Lee and Yin was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of 3GPP.
As to claim 5, Lee and Yin do not further disclose the method of claim 2, further comprising: not transmitting a channel quality indicator request if there is no valid downlink subframe.
3GPP discloses at pages 47-48, if there is no valid downlink subframe for the CQI reference resource, CQI reporting is omitted in uplink subframe n. Note, per MPEP 2111.04 “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” Hence, the contingent limitations pertaining to “if” are not given patentable weight. In the interests of Compact Prosecution, Examiner cited prior art to read upon the limitations had they been non-optional.
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the CQI reporting is omitted in uplink subframe n as taught by 3GPP into the invention of Lee and Yin. The suggestion/motivation would have been to establish the characteristics of the physicals layer procedures in FDD and TDD modes of E-UTRA (3GPP, page 6). Including the CQI reporting is omitted in uplink subframe n as taught by 3GPP into the invention of Lee and Yin was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of 3GPP.
As to claim 6, Lee and Yin further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein: transmitting the channel quality
indicator request is aperiodic (Yin, para. 0011, aperiodic CSI reports).
Lee and Yin do not expressly disclose with each transmission occurring on a same subframe as a corresponding channel quality indicator request in an uplink
Downlink Control Information format.
3GPP discloses DCI format 0 subframe at the UE, containing CQI request field, used in aperiodic reporting (pages 33-35, 37-38).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate DCI format 0 as taught by 3GPP into the invention of Lee and Yin. The suggestion/motivation would have been to establish the characteristics of the physicals layer procedures in the FDD and TDD modes of E-UTRA (3GPP, pages 6-7). Including the DCI format 0 as taught by 3GPP into the invention of Lee and Yin was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of 3GPP.
As to claim 7, Lee and Yin further disclose the method of claim 1, wherein: transmitting the channel quality
indicator request is aperiodic (Yin, para. 0011, aperiodic CSI reports).
Lee and Yin do not expressly disclose with each transmission occurring on a next valid downlink subframe following the channel quality indicator request that is a
Request Access Response Grant subframe.
3GPP discloses Random Access Response Grant subframe at the UE, containing CQI request field, used in aperiodic reporting in next subframe n + k (pages 33-35, 37-38).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate Random Access Response Grant subframe as taught by 3GPP into the invention of Lee and Yin. The suggestion/motivation would have been to establish the characteristics of the physicals layer procedures in the FDD and TDD modes of E-UTRA (3GPP, pages 6-7). Including the Random Access Response Grant subframe as taught by 3GPP into the invention of Lee and Yin was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of 3GPP.
As to claim 9, Lee and Yin do not expressly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein: if a channel quality indicator reference
index is a Cell-specific Channel State Information Reference Signal subframe
the user equipment assumes a presence of a Cell-specific Channel State
Information Reference Signal in determining the channel quality indicator reference
index.
3GPP discloses for deriving CQI index, the UE assumes cell-specific RS EPRE, CQI index in uplink subframe (pages 47-49). Note, per MPEP 2111.04 “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” Hence, the contingent limitations pertaining to “if” are not given patentable weight. In the interests of Compact Prosecution, Examiner cited prior art to read upon the limitations had they been non-optional.
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate CQI index as taught by 3GPP into the invention of Lee and Yin. The suggestion/motivation would have been to establish the characteristics of the physicals layer procedures in the FDD and TDD modes of E-UTRA (3GPP, pages 6-7). Including the CQI index as taught by 3GPP into the invention of Lee and Yin was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of 3GPP.
As to claim 10, Lee and Yin do not expressly disclose the method of claim 1, wherein: each radio frame is divided into a first
set of subframes and a second set of subframes; transmitting the
channel quality indicator request is periodic with a first periodicity for
transmissions in said first set of subframes and a second periodicity for
transmissions in said second set of subframes.
3GPP discloses radio frame has many subframes, different reporting periodicity values for different TDD UL/DL configurations (pages 43-45).
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate periodicities as taught by 3GPP into the invention of Lee and Yin. The suggestion/motivation would have been to establish the characteristics of the physicals layer procedures in the FDD and TDD modes of E-UTRA (3GPP, pages 6-7). Including the periodicities as taught by 3GPP into the invention of Lee and Yin was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of 3GPP.
As to claim 11, Lee and Yin do not further disclose the method of claim 10, wherein: a channel quality indicator reference
index is a Cell-specific Channel State Information Reference Signal
subframe; and if said first periodicity and said second periodicity cause
conflict in transmitting a channel quality indicator response from the user
equipment, the user equipment selects for periodic Channel State Information
reporting a most recent valid Cell-specific Channel State Information Reference
Signal subframe n-n.sub.CQI.sub.--.sub.ref,n.sub.CQI.sub.--.sub.ref.gtoreq.4
which belongs to subframe subset(s) for which Channel State Information
report is sent at n.
3GPP, discloses deriving CQI index, the UE assumes cell-specific RS EPRE, CQI index in uplink subframe (pages 47-49)). Note, per MPEP 2111.04 “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” Hence, the contingent limitations pertaining to “if” are not given patentable weight.
At the time of invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate CQI index as taught by 3GPP into the invention of Lee and Yin. The suggestion/motivation would have been to establish the characteristics of the physicals layer procedures in the FDD and TDD modes of E-UTRA (3GPP, pages 6-7). Including the CQI index as taught by 3GPP into the invention of Lee and Yin was within the ordinary ability of one of ordinary skill in the art based on the teachings of 3GPP.
As to claim 12, Lee, Yin, and 3GPP further disclose the method of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10), wherein: if said first periodicity and said second
periodicity cause conflict in transmitting a channel quality indicator
response from the user equipment, the user equipment selects a single Channel
State Information reporting configuration of a predetermined offset and a
predetermined periodicity. Note, per MPEP 2111.04 “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” Hence, the contingent limitations pertaining to “if” are not given patentable weight. In addition, the same suggestion/motivation of claim 10 applies.
As to claim 13, Lee, Yin, and 3GPP further disclose the method of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10), wherein: if said first periodicity and said second
periodicity cause conflict in transmitting a channel quality indicator
response from the user equipment, the user equipment transmits neither channel
quality indicator response. Note, per MPEP 2111.04 “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” Hence, the contingent limitations pertaining to “if” are not given patentable weight. In addition, the same suggestion/motivation of claim 10 applies.
As to claim 14, Lee, Yin, and 3GPP further disclose the method of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10), wherein: if said first periodicity and said second
periodicity cause conflict in transmitting a channel quality indicator
response from the user equipment, the user equipment transmits both channel
quality indicator responses in a same uplink subframe. Note, per MPEP 2111.04 “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” Hence, the contingent limitations pertaining to “if” are not given patentable weight. In addition, the same suggestion/motivation of claim 10 applies.
As to claim 16, Lee, Yin, and 3GPP further disclose the method of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10), wherein: if said first periodicity and said second
periodicity causes conflict in transmitting a channel quality indicator
response from the user equipment, the user equipment transmits a response to
the channel quality indicator request lying closer to n where L = argmax l = 1
, 2 n CQI_ref , l . ##EQU00003##. Note, per MPEP 2111.04 “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” Hence, the contingent limitations pertaining to “if” are not given patentable weight. In addition, the same suggestion/motivation of claim 10 applies.
As to claim 17, Lee, Yin, and 3GPP further disclose the method of claim 10 (see rejection of claim 10), wherein: if said first periodicity and said second
periodicity cause conflict in transmitting a channel quality indicator
response from the user equipment, the user equipment transmits a response to
the channel quality indicator request lying further from n where L = argmax l =
1 , 2 n CQI_ref , l . ##EQU00004##. Note, per MPEP 2111.04 “The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met.” Hence, the contingent limitations pertaining to “if” are not given patentable weight. In addition, the same suggestion/motivation of claim 10 applies.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8, 15 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.
US 20120020421 A1 discloses at para. [0015]: Coherent demodulation of received data requires estimation of the radio channel, which is facilitated by transmitting reference symbols (RS), i.e., symbols known by the receiver. Acquisition of channel state information (CSI) at the transmitter or the receiver is important to proper implementation of multi-antenna techniques. In LTE, an eNB transmits cell-specific reference symbols (CRS) in all DL subframes on known subcarriers in the OFDM frequency-vs.-time grid. CRS are described in, for example, Clauses 6.10 and 6.11 of 3GPP TS 36.211. A UE uses its received versions of the CRS to estimate characteristics, such as the impulse response, of its DL channel. The UE can then use the estimated channel matrix (CSI) for coherent demodulation of the received DL signal, for channel quality measurements to support link adaptation, and for other purposes. LTE also supports UE-specific reference symbols for assisting channel estimation at eNBs.
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 OMAR J GHOWRWAL whose telephone number is (571)270-5691. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-6:00pm.
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, ASAD NAWAZ can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
/OMAR J GHOWRWAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
Prosecution Insights