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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: what should have been claim 13 is numbered as claim 10. Appropriate correction is required.
The numbering of claims is not in accordance with 37 CFR 1.126 which requires the original numbering of the claims to be preserved throughout the prosecution. When claims are canceled, the remaining claims must not be renumbered. When new claims are presented, they must be numbered consecutively beginning with the number next following the highest numbered claims previously presented (whether entered or not).
Misnumbered claim 10 been renumbered 13.
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, 14, 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 12 and 17 of copending Application No. 18/789669. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending application claims provide coverage for an embodiment within the scope of the claim being examined.
Claims 1, 14, 17 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 17 and 18 of copending Application No. 18/789664. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the copending application claims provide coverage for an embodiment within the scope of the claim being examined.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by ZHANG et al. Pub. No.: US 20230232402 (Hereinafter “Zhang”).
Regarding Claim 1, Zhang discloses a method (see abstract) comprising:
determining, from among a plurality of channel state information (CSI) configurations, a CSI configuration usable for CSI reporting, the plurality of CSI configurations including a CSI Type I configuration and a CSI Type II configuration, the CSI configuration being one of the CSI Type I configuration or the CSI Type II configuration (see fig.5 and paragraph [0071]);
causing a first indication about the CSI configuration to a network (see fig.5 and paragraph [0075]);
processing information that is received from the network based on the first indication and that includes a second indication to use the CSI configuration (see fig.5 and paragraph [0079]); and
generating a CSI report based on the CSI configuration (see fig.5 and paragraph [0082]).
Regarding Claim 2, Zhang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Zhang further discloses wherein the first indication corresponds to a recommendation to use the CSI Type I configuration or the CSI Type II configuration for the CSI reporting (see paragraphs [0075] and [0079]).
Regarding Claim 3, Zhang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Zhang further discloses wherein the CSI configuration is determined based on a first estimated throughput capacity associated with the CSI Type I configuration and a second estimated throughput capacity associated with the CSI Type II configuration (see paragraph [0058]).
Regarding Claim 12, Zhang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1. Zhang further discloses wherein the CSI configuration is for a user equipment (UE) and is determined by at least selecting one of the CSI type I configuration or the CSI type II configuration based on a position of the UE relative to a base station of the network (see paragraph [0084]).
Regarding Claim 14, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 15, Zhang discloses the base station as discussed in the rejection of claim 14. Zhang further discloses wherein the configuration information further indicates a periodic CSI reference signal (CSI-RS) configuration, and wherein each one of the CSI Type I configuration and the CSI Type II configuration is for aperiodic CSI reporting (see paragraph [0065]).
Regarding Claim 16, Zhang discloses the base station as discussed in the rejection of claim 14. Zhang further discloses wherein the second indication is sent in downlink control information (DCI), wherein the first indication corresponds to a recommendation to use the CSI Type I configuration or the CSI Type II configuration for the CSI reporting, and wherein the execution of the instructions further configures the base station to determine whether to override the recommendation based on a network condition (see paragraph [0068]).
Regarding Claim 17, the claim is being analyzed with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
Regarding Claim 18, Zhang discloses the apparatus as discussed in the rejection of claim 17. Zhang further discloses wherein the first indication is sent in layer 1 signaling associated with an uplink control channel or an uplink shared channel or is sent via layer 2 signaling (see paragraph [0052]).
Regarding Claim 19, Zhang discloses the apparatus as discussed in the rejection of claim 17. Zhang further discloses wherein the CSI configuration is for a user equipment (UE) and is selected as one of the CSI type I configuration or the CSI type II configuration based on a comparison of a metric associated with the UE and a threshold value, wherein the threshold value is based on a battery level of the UE, a network condition, or a service requirement (see paragraph [0052]).
Regarding Claim 20, Zhang discloses the apparatus as discussed in the rejection of claim 17. Zhang further discloses wherein the CSI Type II configuration includes a CSI enhanced Type (eType) II configuration (see paragraph [0071]).
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 (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.
Claims 4-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et al. Pub. No.: US 20230232402 (Hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of Elshafie et al. Pub. No.: US 20230180278 (Hereinafter “Elshafie”).
Regarding Claim 4, Zhang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 3.
Zhang fails to disclose:
wherein the CSI configuration is determined to be the CSI Type I configuration based on the first estimated throughput capacity being larger than the second estimated throughput capacity.
In analogous art, Elshafie teaches:
wherein the CSI configuration is determined to be the CSI Type I configuration based on the first estimated throughput capacity being larger than the second estimated throughput capacity (see paragraph [0101]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zhang with the teaching as taught by Elshafie in order to provide techniques for modifying channel state information (CSI) based on delaying transmission of the CSI report, thereby satisfying QOS.
Regarding Claim 5, Zhang in view of Elshafie discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 3. Elshafie further discloses wherein the CSI configuration is determined to be the CSI Type II configuration based on a difference between the second estimated throughput capacity and the first estimated throughput capacity being larger than a threshold value (see paragraph [0099]).
Regarding Claim 6, Zhang in view of Elshafie discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 5. Elshafie further discloses wherein the threshold value is indicated by configuration information received from the network (see paragraphs [0046] and [0101]).
Regarding Claim 9, Zhang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Zhang fails to disclose:
wherein the CSI configuration is for a user equipment (UE) and is determined by at least selecting the CSI type II configuration based on an indication that a speed of the UE is smaller than a threshold value.
In analogous art, Elshafie teaches:
wherein the CSI configuration is for a user equipment (UE) and is determined by at least selecting the CSI type II configuration based on an indication that a speed of the UE is smaller than a threshold value (see paragraph [0090]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zhang with the teaching as taught by Elshafie in order to provide techniques for modifying channel state information (CSI) based on delaying transmission of the CSI report, thereby satisfying QOS.
Regarding Claim 10, Zhang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Zhang fails to disclose:
wherein the CSI configuration is determined based on a measurement of a reference signal and a comparison of the measurement with a threshold value.
In analogous art, Elshafie teaches:
wherein the CSI configuration is determined based on a measurement of a
reference signal and a comparison of the measurement with a threshold value (see
paragraph [0082]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zhang with the teaching as taught by Elshafie in order to provide techniques for modifying channel state information (CSI) based on delaying transmission of the CSI report, thereby satisfying QOS.
Regarding Claim 11, Zhang in view of Elshafie discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 10. Elshafie further discloses wherein the measurement includes a reference signal received power (RSRP), and wherein the CSI configuration is determined by at least selecting the CSI type II configuration based on the RSRP being larger than the threshold value (see paragraph [0111]).
Claim 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et al. Pub. No.: US 20230232402 (Hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of ABEBE et al. Pub. No.: US 20230208493 (Hereinafter “Abebe”).
Regarding Claim 7, Zhang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Zhang fails to disclose:
wherein the CSI configuration is for a user equipment (UE) and is determined based on a Doppler metric of the UE.
In analogous art, Abebe teaches:
wherein the CSI configuration is for a user equipment (UE) and is determined based on a Doppler metric of the UE (see paragraph [0105]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zhang with the teaching as taught by Abebe in order to configure a user equipment (UE) with CSI reporting
configuration, that can be used to report time-varying CSI in an efficient manner by utilizing various codebook types.
Regarding Claim 8, Zhang in view of Abebe discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 7. Abebe further discloses wherein the CSI configuration is determined by at least selecting the CSI Type I configuration based on the Doppler metric being larger than a threshold value (see paragraph [0148]).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ZHANG et al. Pub. No.: US 20230232402 (Hereinafter “Zhang”) in view of VITTHALADEVUNI et al. Pub. No.: US 20240421874 (Hereinafter “VITTHALADEVUNI”).
Regarding Claim 13, Zhang discloses the method as discussed in the rejection of claim 1.
Zhang fails to disclose:
wherein the CSI Type I configuration or the CSI type II configuration is recommended or selected by the UE based on an artificial intelligence (AI)-machine learning (ML) model trained to select between CSI Type I configurations and CSI Type II configurations.
In analogous art, VITTHALADEVUNI teaches:
wherein the CSI Type I configuration or the CSI type II configuration is recommended or selected by the UE based on an artificial intelligence (AI)-machine learning (ML) model trained to select between CSI Type I configurations and CSI Type II configurations (see paragraph [0063]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art before the effective
filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Zhang with the teaching as taught by VITTHALADEVUNI in order to provide signaling a transition between types of channel state information processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Alazar Tilahun whose telephone number is (571)270-5712. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Friday, From 9:00 AM-6:00 PM.
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, Benjamin Bruckart can be reached at 571-272-3982. 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.
/ALAZAR TILAHUN/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2424
/A.T/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2424
Prosecution Insights