CTNF 18/781,426 CTNF 94973 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement 06-52 The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 07/23/2024 and 01/22/2025 were filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner 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. Claims 1, 10, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failure to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor regards as the invention. With respect to claims 1, 10, 19, and 20 recites: “ based at least in part on the first and first priority reporting levels ” . Each of these claims earlier introduces “ a first priority reporting level” and “a second priority reporting level ” as the two priority-reporting-level antecedents established in the wherein clause. The recitation “ the first and first priority reporting levels ” lacks antecedent basis for the second occurrence of “ first ” and is internally inconsistent with the wherein clause that introduces a distinct first priority reporting level and second priority reporting level. The metes and bounds of the recited "based at least in part on" condition cannot be determined under this language. For purposes of compact prosecution and the prior-art rejections set forth below, the limitation is interpreted as if it read “ the first and second priority reporting levels ” ; clarification or correction is required. See MPEP § 2173.05(e). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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: 07-12-aia AIA (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 1-5, 7, 9-14, 16, 18-20 are rejected 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by as being anticipated by Ly (US 2025/0056279 A1). Regarding claim 1, Ly discloses: A first apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the first apparatus at least to: receive, from a second apparatus, a channel state information (CSI) report configuration comprising a first sub-configuration and a second sub-configuration, because Ly describes a UE (user equipment) receiving a CSI report configuration that includes a set of sub-configurations, with each sub-configuration corresponding to a transmission setting associated with a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) (Ly, para [0155] “ receiving, from a network entity , (i.e., “ receive, from a second apparatus ” as claimed) a channel state information (CSI) report configuration comprising a set of sub-configurations, wherein each sub-configuration in the set of sub-configurations (i.e., “ a first sub-configuration and a second sub-configuration ” as claimed) corresponds to a transmission setting associated with a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) ”) (Ly, para [0077] “ the base station may configure a CSI report configuration with multiple sub-configurations, each corresponding to a CSI-RS antenna port configuration ”). Ly further describes that the UE is implemented with at least one processor coupled to at least one memory that stores program code causing the apparatus to carry out the recited operations (Ly, para [0066] “ [t]he controller/processor 359 can be associated with at least one memory 360 that stores program codes and data ”). Moreover, Ly discloses: wherein the first sub-configuration is associated with a first priority reporting level and the second sub-configuration is associated with a second priority reporting level, because Ly teaches that the network configures multiple sub-configurations and accords each one a distinct reporting treatment based on its CSI-RS antenna port count. The sub-configuration whose CSI exhibits rank one (i.e., sub-configuration k under Ly’s notation — read on the “ first sub-configuration” as claimed) drives a full CSI report (i.e., the first priority reporting level as claimed), while a different sub-configuration with fewer CSI-RS antenna ports than sub-configuration k (read on the second sub-configuration as claimed) is subject to either reduced-content reporting or no reporting at all (i.e., the second priority reporting level as claimed, which the claim recites as being “lower than the first priority reporting level” ) (Ly, para [0077] “ the base station may configure a CSI report configuration with multiple sub-configurations, each corresponding to a CSI-RS antenna port configuration ”) (Ly, para [0082] “ if the UE identifies that the CSI for one sub-configuration, annotated as sub-configuration k, has a rank of 1, the UE may react following one of the two options described below ”) (Ly, para [0083] “ the UE may not report (e.g., the UE refrains from transmitting) CSI for a sub-configuration with fewer CSI-RS antenna ports than those in sub-configuration k ”). Ly thereby maps the first sub-configuration (rank-1 sub-configuration k, fully reported) and the second sub-configuration (a different sub-configuration with fewer CSI-RS antenna ports, reported with reduced content or not reported at all) to differing reporting treatments — i.e., to the recited first and second priority reporting levels. In addition, Ly also discloses: or a first portion of the CSI corresponding to the first sub-configuration is associated with the first priority reporting level and a second portion of the CSI corresponding to the first sub-configuration is associated with the second priority reporting level, because Ly teaches that within the CSI of a single sub-configuration the constituent CSI parameters are themselves accorded different reporting treatments — some parameters are included in the reported subset while others are excluded. A first portion of the CSI parameters (i.e., the included Part 1 CSI parameters such as CRI and/or CQI — read on the first portion as claimed) is in fact reported (i.e., the first priority reporting level as claimed), while a second portion of the CSI parameters (i.e., the excluded parameters such as RI — read on the second portion as claimed) is omitted from the reported subset (i.e., the second priority reporting level as claimed) (Ly, para [0084] “ the UE may report a subset of CSI parameters (e.g., the UE reports a reduced content of the CSI report) for a sub-configuration with fewer CSI-RS antenna ports than those in sub-configuration k ”) (Ly, para [0084] “ the subset of CSI parameters to be reported may not include the RI ”) (Ly, para [0084] “ the subset of CSI parameters may include one or more parameters from Part 1 CSI, such as CRI and/or CQI ”). Ly’s inclusion-vs-exclusion of constituent CSI parameters within the first sub-configuration’s CSI thus associates a first portion of that CSI (the included Part 1 parameters) with the first priority reporting level (reported) and a second portion of that CSI (the excluded parameters such as RI) with the second priority reporting level (omitted), as recited. Furthermore, Ly discloses: and wherein the second priority reporting level is lower than the first priority reporting level; because Ly describes the second reporting treatment as either full omission of the CSI report for that sub-configuration or reduced content of the CSI report (i.e., a lower reporting level), whereas the first sub-configuration (sub-configuration k) drives the full CSI reporting, such that the second sub-configuration’s reporting level is lower than the first’s (Ly, para [0083] “ the UE may not report (e.g., the UE refrains from transmitting) CSI for a sub-configuration with fewer CSI-RS antenna ports than those in sub-configuration k ”) (Ly, para [0084] “ the subset of CSI parameters to be reported may not include the RI ” “ the subset of CSI parameters may include one or more parameters from Part 1 CSI, such as CRI and/or CQI ”). Additionally, Ly discloses: and transmit, to the second apparatus and based at least in part on the first and first priority reporting levels, a CSI report associated with at least one of the first sub-configuration or the second sub-configuration. Ly describes that the UE transmits a CSI report (full or reduced-content) to the network entity based on the transmission setting corresponding to a given sub-configuration — the CSI report is associated with at least one of the first sub-configuration (the full CSI for sub-configuration k) or the second sub-configuration (the reduced-content CSI for the lower-priority sub-configuration) (Ly, para [0155] “ transmitting, based on the transmission setting corresponding a first sub-configuration of the subset of sub-configurations, a reduced content of a CSI report or refraining from transmitting the CSI report, wherein the CSI report is associated with a first CSI for the first sub-configuration ”) (Ly, para [0097] “ the UE 702 may determine one or more CSIs respectively corresponding to the subset of the set of sub-configurations ”). The UE’s transmission decision is therefore made based at least in part on the respective priority reporting levels recited. Regarding claim 2, Ly discloses: The first apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first apparatus is further caused to perform at least one of the following: mapping all the CSI corresponding to the first sub-configuration to a first part of the CSI report, or mapping the first portion to the first part of the CSI report and mapping the second portion to a second part of the CSI report, wherein the first portion corresponds to a first set of report quantities and the second portion corresponds to a second set of report quantities. Ly describes that the reduced-content CSI report for the lower-priority sub-configuration includes a subset of CSI parameters drawn from Part 1 CSI, with the remaining parameters (such as RI) excluded from reporting altogether — i.e., the first portion (Part 1 parameters such as CRI and CQI) is mapped to the first part of the CSI report and the second portion is handled separately (Ly, para [0084] “ the subset of CSI parameters to be reported may not include the RI ” “ the subset of CSI parameters may include one or more parameters from Part 1 CSI, such as CRI and/or CQI ”). Because claim 2 recites its alternatives in the at-least-one-of form, disclosure of either alternative — here, mapping the first portion to the first part — satisfies the claim. Regarding claim 3, Ly discloses: The first apparatus of claim 2, wherein the report quantity comprised in the first or second set of report quantities associates with one of the following: a wideband channel quality indicator (CQI), a subband CQI, a wideband precoding matrix indicator (PMI), a subband PMI, a CSI-reference signal (RS) resource indicator (CRI), a layer indicator (LI), or a rank indicator (RI). Ly expressly names each of the recited report-quantity alternatives, including channel quality indicator (CQI), precoding matrix indicator (PMI), CSI-reference-signal resource indicator (CRI), and rank indicator (RI), as quantities carried by the CSI report (Ly, para [0084] “ the subset of CSI parameters may include one or more parameters from Part 1 CSI, such as CRI and/or CQI ”) (Ly, para [0062] “ [t]he PUCCH carries uplink control information (UCI), such as scheduling requests, a channel quality indicator (CQI), a precoding matrix indicator (PMI), a rank indicator (RI) ”). Claim 3 recites its report quantities in Markush one-of alternative form, so disclosure of any one of the listed report quantities satisfies the claim. Regarding claim 4, Ly discloses: The first apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first apparatus is further caused to: map all the CSI corresponding to the second sub-configuration to a second part of the CSI report. Ly describes that, for the lower-priority sub-configuration, the UE either refrains from transmitting the CSI for that sub-configuration or transmits only a subset of CSI parameters that excludes the RI — i.e., the CSI for that sub-configuration is mapped to the second (reduced or omissible) part of the CSI report rather than to the first part (Ly, para [0083] “ the UE may not report (e.g., the UE refrains from transmitting) CSI for a sub-configuration with fewer CSI-RS antenna ports than those in sub-configuration k ”) (Ly, para [0084] “ the subset of CSI parameters to be reported may not include the RI ”). Regarding claim 5, Ly discloses: The first apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first apparatus is further caused to: receive, from the second apparatus, an uplink control information (UCI) mapping configuration indicating at least one of the following: at least one down-prioritized sub-configuration with the second priority reporting level, the at least one down-prioritized sub-configuration comprising the second sub-configuration, or at least one UCI mapping rule implying the at least one down-prioritized sub-configuration. Ly describes that the network entity’s CSI report configuration carries, per sub-configuration, the transmission setting (including the CSI-RS antenna port count and PDSCH power offset) that implies which sub-configurations the UE will treat as lower-priority and either refrain from reporting or report only in reduced content — i.e., a UCI mapping rule implying the down-prioritized sub-configuration (Ly, para [0077] “ the base station may configure a CSI report configuration with multiple sub-configurations, each corresponding to a CSI-RS antenna port configuration ”) (Ly, para [0083] “ the UE may not report (e.g., the UE refrains from transmitting) CSI for a sub-configuration with fewer CSI-RS antenna ports than those in sub-configuration k ”). Because claim 5 uses the at-least-one-of alternative form, disclosure of the implying rule alternative is sufficient. Regarding claim 7, Ly discloses: The first apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first sub-configuration is associated with a first spatial or power adaptation pattern, and the second sub-configuration is associated with a second spatial or power adaptation pattern different from the first spatial or power adaptation pattern. Ly describes that each sub-configuration corresponds to a distinct CSI-RS antenna port configuration (spatial-domain adaptation pattern) or a distinct PDSCH/CSI-RS power offset (power-domain adaptation pattern), such that a first sub-configuration corresponds to one such pattern and a second sub-configuration corresponds to a different pattern (Ly, para [0076] “ Two types of spatial domain (SD) adaptations may be utilized. The first, Type 1 SD adaptation, adapts the configuration of logical antenna ports for CSI-reference signals (CSI-RS) and/or PDSCH ”) (Ly, para [0079] “ [f]or PD adaptation, the sub-configuration may contain the power offset value between PDSCH and CSI-RS ”). Regarding claim 9, Ly discloses: The first apparatus of claim 1, wherein the first apparatus is a terminal apparatus and the second apparatus is a network apparatus. Ly describes that the first apparatus is a user equipment (UE) — i.e., a terminal apparatus — and the second apparatus is a network entity such as a base station — i.e., a network apparatus (Ly, para [0155] “ receiving, from a network entity, a channel state information (CSI) report configuration ”) (Ly, para [0051] “ [t]he base station 102 may include and/or be referred to as a gNB, Node B, eNB, an access point, a base transceiver station, a radio base station, a radio transceiver, a transceiver function ”). Regarding claim 10, the claim recites: A second apparatus comprising: at least one processor; and at least one memory storing instructions that, when executed by the at least one processor, cause the second apparatus at least to: transmit, to a first apparatus, a channel state information (CSI) report configuration comprising a first sub-configuration and a second sub-configuration, wherein the first sub-configuration is associated with a first priority reporting level and the second sub-configuration is associated with a second priority reporting level, or a first portion of the CSI corresponding to the first sub-configuration is associated with the first priority reporting level and a second portion of the CSI corresponding to the first sub-configuration is associated with the second priority reporting level, and wherein the second priority reporting level is lower than the first priority reporting level; and receive, from the first apparatus and based at least in part on the first and first priority reporting levels, a CSI report associated with at least one of the first sub-configuration or the second sub-configuration. Claim 10 is analogous to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 11, the claim recites: The second apparatus of claim 10, wherein all the CSI corresponding to the first sub-configuration is mapped to a first part of the CSI report, or wherein the first portion is mapped to the first part of the CSI report and the second portion is mapped to a second part of the CSI report, and wherein the first portion corresponds to a first set of report quantities and the second portion corresponds to a second set of report quantities. Claim 11 is analogous to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 12, the claim recites: The second apparatus of claim 11, wherein the report quantity comprised in the first or second set of report quantities associates with one of the following: a wideband channel quality indicator (CQI), a subband CQI, a wideband precoding matrix indicator (PMI), a subband PMI, a CSI-reference signal (RS) resource indicator (CRI), a layer indicator (LI), or a rank indicator (RI). Claim 12 is analogous to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 13, the claim recites: The second apparatus of claim 10, wherein all the CSI corresponding to the second sub-configuration is mapped to a second part of the CSI report. Claim 13 is analogous to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 14, the claim recites: The second apparatus of claim 10, wherein the second apparatus is further caused to: transmit, to the first apparatus, an uplink control information (UCI) mapping configuration indicating at least one of the following: at least one down-prioritized sub-configuration with the second priority reporting level, the at least one down-prioritized sub-configuration comprising the second sub-configuration, or at least one UCI mapping rule implying the at least one down-prioritized sub-configuration. Claim 14 is analogous to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 16, the claim recites: The second apparatus of claim 10, wherein the first sub-configuration is associated with a first spatial or power adaptation pattern, and the second sub-configuration is associated with a second spatial or power adaptation pattern different from the first spatial or power adaptation pattern. Claim 16 is analogous to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 18, the claim recites: The second apparatus of claim 10, wherein the first apparatus is a terminal apparatus and the second apparatus is a network apparatus. Claim 18 is analogous to claim 9 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 19, the claim recites: A method comprising: receiving, at a first apparatus and from a second apparatus, a channel state information (CSI) report configuration comprising a first sub-configuration and a second sub-configuration, wherein the first sub-configuration is associated with a first priority reporting level and the second sub-configuration is associated with a second priority reporting level, or a first portion of the CSI corresponding to the first sub-configuration is associated with the first priority reporting level and a second portion of the CSI corresponding to the first sub-configuration is associated with the second priority reporting level, and wherein the second priority reporting level is lower than the first priority reporting level; and transmitting, to the second apparatus and based at least in part on the first and first priority reporting levels, a CSI report associated with at least one of the first sub-configuration or the second sub-configuration. Claim 19 is analogous to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. Regarding claim 20, the claim recites: A method comprising: transmitting, at a second apparatus and to a first apparatus, a channel state information (CSI) report configuration comprising a first sub-configuration and a second sub-configuration, wherein the first sub-configuration is associated with a first priority reporting level and the second sub-configuration is associated with a second priority reporting level, or a first portion of the CSI corresponding to the first sub-configuration is associated with the first priority reporting level and a second portion of the CSI corresponding to the first sub-configuration is associated with the second priority reporting level, and wherein the second priority reporting level is lower than the first priority reporting level; and receiving, from the first apparatus and based at least in part on the first and first priority reporting levels, a CSI report associated with at least one of the first sub-configuration or the second sub-configuration. Claim 20 is analogous to claim 10 and is rejected for the same reasons. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly (US 2025/0056279 A1) in view of Yuan (US 2023/0246759 A1) . Regarding claim 6, Ly teaches multi-sub-configuration CSI carriage onto the CSI report (Ly, para [0025] “ a CSI report may include CSIs associated with multiple sub-configurations ”) however, Ly does not explicitly disclose that the rule for inter-sub-configuration serialization onto the UCI bit sequence: The first apparatus of claim 5, wherein the UCI mapping configuration further indicates that: different CSI sub-configuration reports corresponding to different sub-configurations with a same priority reporting level are mapped to a UCI bit sequence according to an ascending or descending order of index of sub-configuration . Nevertheless, Ly in view of Yuan teaches that, in mapping CSI for multiple CSI reports to a UCI bit sequence, the CSI for those multiple CSI reports is serialized according to an ascending or descending order of priorities indexed from the first CSI report through the N-th CSI report (Yuan, para [0118] “ a descending order of the ninth priorities is: Part 2 CSI corresponding to the first CSI report, Part 2 CSI corresponding to the second CSI report, and so on, until Part 2 CSI corresponding to the Nth CSI report ”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Ly's UCI mapping configuration in view of Yuan to specify that CSI sub-configuration reports for sub-configurations sharing a same priority reporting level are mapped to a UCI bit sequence according to an ascending or descending order of index of sub-configuration. Yuan supplies a serialization rule that orders multi-CSI-report content onto the UCI in ascending order of priorities of CSI reports (Yuan, para [0105] “ Delete part 2 of CSI according to ascending order of priorities of CSI reports ”) and, alternatively, in a descending order keyed to the first through the N-th CSI report; applying that serialization rule to Ly's already-individually-identified sub-configurations yields the predictable result of an unambiguous, deterministic UCI bit-sequence mapping that the receiving network entity can decode and reassemble per-sub-configuration without additional signaling overhead. The combination is independently supported as a matter of obvious design choice within MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(F) ( reversal of parts and direction of ordering as an obvious matter of design choice absent a showing of unexpected result) and as an obvious-to-try selection from a finite set of two identified, predictable directions under MPEP § 2143(E) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 421 (2007). Accordingly, the applicant's specification does not identify a result uniquely tied to ascending versus descending traversal that would distinguish the recited limitation from the conventional design-choice posture. See also In re Japikse , 181 F.2d 1019, 1023 (CCPA 1950); In re Burhans , 154 F.2d 690, 692 (CCPA 1946). Therefore, the rejection of claim 6, and of claim 15 by the analogous-claim treatment that follows, is supported on this basis. Regarding claim 15, the claim recites: The second apparatus of claim 14, wherein the UCI mapping configuration further indicates that: different CSI sub-configuration reports corresponding to different sub-configurations with a same priority reporting level are mapped to a UCI bit sequence according to an ascending or descending order of index of sub-configuration. Claim 15 is analogous to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 8 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ly (US 2025/0056279 A1) in view of Kwak (US 11,637,642 B2) . Regarding claim 8, Ly teaches the carriage of CSI as uplink control information on the physical uplink control channel (Ly, para [0062] “ [t]he PUCCH carries uplink control information (UCI), such as scheduling requests, a channel quality indicator (CQI), a precoding matrix indicator (PMI), a rank indicator (RI) ”) however, Ly does not explicitly disclose that the CSI report configuration carries a time-domain CSI reporting type designation: The first apparatus of claim 1, wherein the CSI report configuration is a periodic CSI reporting, or a medium access control element (MAC-CE) based semi-persistent CSI reporting, and wherein the CSI report is carried on physical uplink control channel (PUCCH). Nevertheless, Ly in view of Kwak teaches that the CSI report configuration may be periodic or semi-persistent, with the semi-persistent reporting activated by a MAC CE-based activation signal (Kwak, col. 24, lines 46-49 “ can be reported periodically or semi-persistently by the CSI reporting setting according to RRC setting of the eNB and a DCI- or MAC CE-based activation or deactivation signal ”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was effectively filed to modify Ly's CSI report configuration in view of Kwak to specify that the CSI report configuration is a periodic CSI reporting, or a medium access control control element (MAC-CE) based semi-persistent CSI reporting, and that the CSI report is carried on the PUCCH. Kwak teaches that, in NR, semi-persistent CSI reporting supports dynamic activity and inactivity compared to periodic CSI reporting, with the semi-persistent activation/deactivation signaled by RRC together with DCI or MAC CE (Kwak, col. 24, lines 46-49 “ can be reported periodically or semi-persistently by the CSI reporting setting according to RRC setting of the eNB and a DCI- or MAC CE-based activation or deactivation signal ”) and that PUCCH carries CSI feedback in both periodic and semi-persistent reporting modes (Kwak, col. 20, lines 24-25 “ [a] PUCCH used in periodic and semi-persistent CSI reporting ”); Ly's CSI report carriage as UCI on PUCCH is the same channel and same UCI mechanism that Kwak applies to periodic and MAC-CE-based semi-persistent reports. Doing so yields the predictable result of a UE that supports the standardized NR time-domain CSI reporting modes (periodic and MAC-CE-based semi-persistent) on the same PUCCH already used by Ly for CSI carriage. The combination is supported as the predictable use of prior-art elements according to their established functions per KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc. , 550 U.S. 398, 416 (2007). The rejection of claim 8, and of claim 17 by the analogous-claim treatment that follows, is supported on this basis. Regarding claim 17, the claim recites: The second apparatus of claim 10, wherein the CSI report configuration is a periodic CSI reporting, or a medium access control element (MAC-CE) based semi-persistent CSI reporting, and wherein the CSI report is carried on physical uplink control channel (PUCCH). Claim 17 is analogous to claim 8 and is rejected for the same reasons. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHONGSUH (John) PARK whose telephone number is 408-918-7574. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:30 PST 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, Avellino, Joseph can be reached at 571-272-3905 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. /CHONGSUH PARK/Examiner, Art Unit 2478 /KODZOVI ACOLATSE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/781,426 Page 2 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/781,426 Page 3 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/781,426 Page 4 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/781,426 Page 5 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/781,426 Page 6 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/781,426 Page 7 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/781,426 Page 8 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/781,426 Page 9 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/781,426 Page 10 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/781,426 Page 11 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/781,426 Page 12 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/781,426 Page 13 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/781,426 Page 14 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/781,426 Page 15 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/781,426 Page 16 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/781,426 Page 17 Art Unit: 2478 Application/Control Number: 18/781,426 Page 18 Art Unit: 2478
Prosecution Insights