LAYER-SPECIFIC COEFFICIENT QUANTITY AND/OR QUANTIZATION SCHEME REPORTING FOR TYPE II CHANNEL STATE INFORMATION COMPRESSION

Application No. 18/773,040

• Filed: Jul 15, 2024
• Priority: Jan 18, 2019 — CN PCT/CN2019/072305
  • Jan 15, 2020 — nonprovisional of PCTCN2020072193
  • Jun 17, 2021 — continuation of 12/041,474
• Examiner: CROMPTON, CHRISTOPHER R
• Assignee: Qualcomm Incorporated
• OA Round: 1 (Non-Final)

Office Action

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 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); 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 nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) 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 www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-29 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12041474. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
For claim 1, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 1.
For claim 2, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 1.
For claim 3, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 2.
For claim 4, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 3.
For claim 5, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 4.
For claim 6, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 5.
For claim 7, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 6.
For claim 8, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 7.
For claim 9, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 8.
For claim 10, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 9.
For claim 11, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 10.
For claim 12, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 11.
For claim 13, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 12.
For claim 14, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 13.
For claim 15, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 14.
For claim 16, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 15.
For claim 17, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 16.
For claim 18, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 17.
For claim 19, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 18.
For claim 20, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 19.
For claim 21, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 20.
For claim 22, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 21.
For claim 23, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 22.
For claim 24, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 23.
For claim 25, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 24.
For claim 26, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 25.
For claim 27, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 26.
For claim 28, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claim 27.
For claim 29, ‘474 discloses the limitations in claims 1 and 27-29.
Allowable Subject Matter
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: If a Terminal Disclaimer were filed then the claims would appear to be allowable in view of the closest prior art of record Onggosanusi et al (US 2018/0175993).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Tsai et al (US 2018/0198561) discloses CSI coefficient per layer.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON whose telephone number is [phone]. The examiner can normally be reached 10AM-4PM ET M-Th.
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 [phone]. 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.

/CHRISTOPHER R CROMPTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463

Prosecution Timeline

• Jul 15, 2024: Application Filed
• Jul 15, 2026: Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)