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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); and In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on a nonstatutory double patenting ground provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The USPTO internet Web site contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit http://www.uspto.gov/forms/. The filing date of the application will determine what form should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-8 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-16 of U.S. Patent No. 12081297. Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the instant application merely change the scope of claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. 12081297 by changing “CSI report, …first resource information for a channel measurement” to “two CSI-reference signal (CSI-RS) resources for channel measurements”. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have two CSI-RS resources, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Instant Application
U.S. Patent 12081297
1. A method performed by a user equipment (UE) in wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving configurations for a channel state information (CSI) report, wherein the configurations are related to (i) two CSI-reference signal (CSI-RS) resources for channel measurements and (ii) one CSI-interference measurement (CSI-IM) resource for interference measurements,
wherein the two CSI-RS resources and the CSI-IM resource are quasi-colocated (QCLed) with respect to type D;
receiving signals for the CSI report based on the two CSI-RS resources and the CSI-IM resource; and transmitting the CSI report based on the signals.
1. A method for reporting, by a user equipment (UE), channel state information (CSI) in wireless communication system, the method comprising:
receiving configuration information related to a CSI report, wherein the configuration information includes (i) first resource information for a channel measurement and (ii) second resource information for an interference measurement, and
wherein a first resource for the channel measurement is configured based on the first resource information and a second resource for the interference measurement is configured based on the second resource information; receiving a reference signal based on the configuration information; measuring a signal to interference noise ratio (SINR) based on the reference signal, wherein the SINR is measured by applying Quasi CO location (QCL) information configured to the first resource to the second resource; and transmitting the CSI including the SINR, wherein the second resource is a channel state information-interference measurement (CSI-IM) resource, and wherein the QCL information corresponds to QCL type D.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 1, 3, 5, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over FAXÉR et al. (US 20200395989) in view of Karjalainen et al. (US 20210250797).
Regarding claims 1, 3, 5, and 7, FAXÉR teaches receiving configurations for a channel state information (CSI) report, wherein the configurations are related to (i) CSI-reference signal (CSI-RS) resources for channel measurements and (ii) one CSI-interference measurement (CSI-IM) resource for interference measurements (Fig. 15 and [0123] Network node 16 is configured to transmit a configuration for CSI measurement including a first NZP CSI-RS resource set for channel measurement and a second NZP CSI-RS resource set for interference measurement); receiving signals for the CSI report based on the CSI-RS resources and the CSI-IM resource; and transmitting the CSI report based on the signals ([0157] Option 1: the measured interferences on the second resource set may be accumulated for CSI estimation. The WD 22 may report to the network node 16 only the CSI; [0158] Option 2: the WD 22 measures interference on each NZP CSI-RS resource in the second resource set).
However, FAXÉR does not expressly teach wherein the two CSI-RS resources and the CSI-IM resource are quasi-colocated (QCLed) with respect to type D. Karjalainen teaches Fig. 2 and [0044] the network may configure CSI-IM resources to have different spatial QCL assumptions, such as QCL-type D, with respect to CSI-RS resource channel measurements. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine with Karjalainen in order to transmit, by the used equipment, one or more interference measurements based upon the configured flexible UL-to-DL cross-link specific resource configuration to the network entity (Abstract, Karjalainen).
Neither FAXÉR nor Karjalainen teaches two CSI-RS resources. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have two CSI-RS resources, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EUNSOOK CHOI whose telephone number is (571)270-1822. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4:30pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Hassan Phillips can be reached on 5712723940. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/EUNSOOK CHOI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights