DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the amendment filed on 24 July 2026, having claims 1-2, 4-8, 10-14, and 16-18 (claims 3, 9, and 15 were canceled).
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 24 July 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argued that the Kim reference discloses a single CSI-RS signal for measurement, and not a plurality of N reference signals as recited in the claims. The examiner respectfully disagrees. Kim [0212] teaches two DL reference signals. Thus, Kim’s CSI measurement method may be performed with more than one reference signals. Thus, the rejection is maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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 names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Kim et al. (US 2022/0239358 A1) (reference disclosed by applicant).
For claims 1, 7, and 13, Kim discloses a communication apparatus (Fig 28, UE or Fig 31, device 100), comprising: at least one processor (Fig 31, processor 102) configured with processor-executable instructions to perform operations comprising:
receiving configuration information from a network device (abstract, UE receives configuration information from a base station), wherein the configuration information indicates resources of N reference signals for channel measurement ([0212] two DL reference signals are received from the base station), and N is a positive integer greater than 1, wherein receiving the N reference signals from the network device (abstract, the configuration information comprises N CSI-RS resource groups corresponding to N reference signals transmitted from the base station);
determining channel state indication information that is obtained by the communication
apparatus by measuring the N reference signals based on the configuration information ([0710] UE performs CSI measurement based on the configuration information); and sending the channel state indication information to the network device (abstract, the UE reports the measured CSI to the base station using the N resource groups based on the configuration information).
For claims 2, 8, and 14, Kim discloses the configuration information further indicates one or N resources for interference measurement, and the channel state indication information is obtained by measuring the N reference signals and performing signal detection on the one or N resources for interference measurement based on the configuration information (abstract, wherein a subset of the CSI-RS resource set is used to report channel measurement, and a subset of the CSI-RS resource set is used to report interference measurement).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
5. 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.
This application names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3, 9, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim et al. (US 2022/0239358 A1) (reference disclosed by applicant) in view of Bai et al. (US 2024/0340990 A1).
For claims 3, 9, and 15, Kim does not expressly disclose the channel state indication
information does not comprise a channel state information reference signal resource indicator
(CRI).
Bai, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the channel state indication information does not comprise a channel state information reference signal resource indicator (CRI) ([0060] the CSI report sent to the BS comprises one or more channel estimation parameters, wherein CRI is one of the parameters). Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the UE in the communication network of Kim to exclude CRI from the CSI report based on the teachings of Bai at the time of the invention.
Allowable Subject Matter
6. Claims 4-6, 10-12, and 16-18 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
7. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
8. THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM 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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
