DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
2. 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
3. Claim 13 recites the limitation “the setting for the overhead of the CSI” in lines 1-2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 13 is interpreted as depending on claim 12, rather than on claim 1.
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.
5. 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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
6. Claims 1-2 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Levy et al., U.S. Patent No. 11,316,575 (hereinafter Levy).
Regarding claim 1, Levy discloses a method for a first communication device to transmit channel state information (CSI) for a specific channel to a second communication device (disclosed is a method according to which a UE [“first communication device”] transmits channel state information to a base station [“second communication device”], according to Abstract, column 27 lines 46-52, Fig. 8), the method comprising:
predicting channel state at a plurality of time points by measuring the specific channel (expected channel quality indicators (CQIs) are determined by the UE at a plurality of times by measuring reference signals that are transmitted from the base station, according to Abstract, column 6 lines 9-53, column 28 lines 17-37, Fig. 8 [steps 806a, 807a, 806n, and 807n]);
generating CSI for transmitting a plurality of prediction information obtained through the prediction (the UE generates channel state information, in the form of prediction information that comprises CQIs, rank indicators (RIs), and precoding matrix indicators (PMIs), for a channel state feedback (CSF) report, according to column 6 lines 9-53, column 17 line 62 to column 18 line 2, column 28 lines 43-67, Fig. 8 [step 810]); and
transmitting the CSI to the second communication device (the UE transmits the CSF report to the base station, according to column 29 lines 1-4, Fig. 8 [step 812]),
wherein at least some of the plurality of prediction information occupy different overheads in the CSI (the prediction information comprises CQIs, RIs, and PMIs (whereby it is well-known that these indicators have bit lengths [“overheads”] that differ from each other), according to column 17 line 62 to column 18 line 2). Regarding claim 15, Levy discloses a method for a first communication device to manage a channel prediction model (disclosed is a method according to which a UE [“first communication device”] performs channel prediction, according to Abstract, column 27 line 46 to column 28 line 37, Fig. 8), the method comprising:
predicting channel state at a plurality of time points based on at least some of a plurality of reference signals received from a second communication device (the expected channel quality indicators (CQIs) for a plurality of times are determined by the UE by measuring successive reference signals that are transmitted from a base station [“second communication device”] via a downlink channel, according to Abstract, column 6 lines 9-27, column 28 lines 17-37, Fig. 8 [steps 806a, 807a, 806n, and 807n]);
measuring the channel at each of the plurality of time points based on at least some of the plurality of reference signals (the UE measures the reference signals sent from the base station on the downlink channel at successive times, according to Abstract, column 6 lines 9-27, column 28 lines 13-33); and
storing a plurality of prediction information obtained through the prediction and a plurality of measurement information obtained through the measurement (the plurality of expected CQIs are stored by the UE (since the reference signal measurements are used to determine these expected CQIs, the UE necessarily stores said reference signal measurements), according to column 28 lines 17-37, Fig. 8 [steps 807a and 807n]).
Regarding claim 2, Levy discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the overhead is the number of bits representing each of the plurality of prediction information in the CSI (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1, the overhead is the number of bits for each of the corresponding types of channel state information).
Regarding claim 14, Levy discloses the method of claim 1, wherein the first communication device and the second communication device correspond to user equipment and a base station belonging to a mobile communication system, respectively, wherein the specific channel corresponds to a downlink channel from the base station to the user equipment, and the CSI is CSI fed back to the base station in the mobile communication system (as outlined in the rejection of claim 1, the first communication device is a UE and the second communication device is a base station, whereby the channel is a downlink channel from the base station to the UE, according to column 6 lines 9-15, whereby the channel state information is fed back to the base station, according to Abstract, column 6 lines 21-27, column 29 lines 1-4, Fig. 8 [step 812]).
Regarding claim 16, Levy discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising generating CSI based on the plurality of prediction information and transmitting the generated CSI to the second communication device, wherein some of the plurality of reference signals are not used for obtaining the plurality of prediction information, but are used for obtaining the plurality of measurement information (the UE generates a channel state report that comprises channel state information that is based on predicted interference information, according to column 17 line 62 to column 18 line 16, whereby the UE sends the channel state report to the base station, according to column 29 lines 1-4, Fig. 8 [step 812], whereby the reference signals received by the UE are used by said UE to perform measurements, and the measurements are in turn used to obtain the predicted interference information (therefore, the reference signals are only directly used for obtaining measurement information), according to column 6 lines 9-53, column 17 lines 55-61).
Regarding claim 17, Levy discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising receiving measurement configuration information and prediction configuration information from the second communication device, wherein the measurement configuration information includes information on a channel measurement window indicating the number of reference signals to be measured for prediction and a period of the channel measurement window, and the prediction configuration information includes information on a channel prediction window indicating the number of prediction information to be reported as a result of channel prediction and a period of the channel prediction window (the UE receives a CSF configuration from the base station, said CSF configuration comprising information for configuring measurements and predictions, whereby the measurement configuration information specifies the number of reference signals to be measured and their corresponding times over a time period, whereby the UE is to compute an expected CQI at each of these times for the associated reference signal that is measured, according to column 27 line 53 to column 28 line 37, Fig. 8 [steps 802, 806a, 807a, 806n, and 807n]).
Regarding claim 18, Levy disclose the method of claim 15, further comprising calculating a channel prediction performance indicator based on the stored plurality of prediction information and the stored plurality of measurement information (based on the reference signal measurements, the UE determines a CQI or a MCS (modulation coding scheme) for each RI for each received reference signal, according to column 27 line 53 to column 28 line 37, Fig. 8 [steps 802, 806a, 807a, 806n, and 807n]); and
transmitting the calculated channel prediction performance indicator to the second communication device (the CSF report, which comprises the determined expected CQIs, is transmitted from the UE to the base station, according to column 28 line 43 to column 29 line 4, Fig. 8 [steps 810 and 812]).
Regarding claim 19, Levy discloses the method of claim 15, further comprising transmitting the stored plurality of prediction information and the stored plurality of measurement information to the second communication device so that the second communication device can calculate a channel prediction performance indicator (the UE transmits the CSF report to the base station, and the base station uses said CSF report to perform link adaptation, whereby the PMI, RI, and MCS for the link with the UE are updated, according to column 29 lines 1-24, Fig. 8 [steps 812 and 814]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. This application currently 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 in order 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.
10. Claims 3-7, 11-12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy as applied to claims 1 and 19 above, in view of Karri et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/0244331 (hereinafter Karri).
Regarding claim 3, Levy discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Levy does not expressly disclose that prediction information for a time point closest to a measurement time point has more overhead than prediction information for a time point farthest from the measurement time point.
Karri discloses that prediction information for a time point closest to a measurement time point has more overhead than prediction information for a time point farthest from the measurement time point (CSI precoding overhead reduction over time is performed, such that the number of bits in successive CSI reports (whereby measurements are taken prior to CSI reports being sent, according to [0111]) decreases (e.g., from 550 bits in a first CSI report, to 194 bits in a second CSI report), according to [0136]-[0138], Fig. 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy with Karri such that prediction information for a time point closest to a measurement time point has more overhead than prediction information for a time point farthest from the measurement time point.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent a high bit error rate and block error rate when the base station does not yet have full beam information (Karri: [0134]).
Regarding claim 4, Levy discloses all the limitations of claim 1. Additionally, Levy discloses that the generating comprises generating the CSI as codebook-based CSI (the channel state information is codebook-based, according to column 8 lines 15-21, column 28 lines 61-63).
Levy does not expressly disclose that the CSI is generated such that prediction information for a time point closest to a measurement time point has more overhead than prediction information for a time point farthest from the measurement time point.
Karri discloses that the CSI is generated such that prediction information for a time point closest to a measurement time point has more overhead than prediction information for a time point farthest from the measurement time point (CSI precoding overhead reduction over time is performed, such that the number of bits in successive CSI reports (whereby measurements are taken prior to CSI reports being sent, according to [0111]) decreases (e.g., from 550 bits in a first CSI report, to 194 bits in a second CSI report), according to [0136]-[0138], Fig. 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy with Karri such that the CSI is generated such that prediction information for a time point closest to a measurement time point has more overhead than prediction information for a time point farthest from the measurement time point.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent a high bit error rate and block error rate when the base station does not yet have full beam information (Karri: [0134]).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Levy and Karri discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Levy does not expressly disclose that the generating comprises adjusting the number of bits representing at least one of an amplitude and a phase of each of the plurality of prediction information to adjust the overhead for each of the plurality of prediction information.
Karri discloses that the generating comprises adjusting the number of bits representing at least one of an amplitude and a phase of each of the plurality of prediction information to adjust the overhead for each of the plurality of prediction information (the number of bits representing each of amplitude and phase for each beam for a CSI report is adjusted to thereby set the total number of bits, according to [0127]-[0129]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy as modified by Karri with Karri such that the generating comprises adjusting the number of bits representing at least one of an amplitude and a phase of each of the plurality of prediction information to adjust the overhead for each of the plurality of prediction information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent a high bit error rate and block error rate when the base station does not yet have full beam information (Karri: [0134]).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Levy and Karri discloses all the limitations of claim 4.
Levy does not expressly disclose that the generating comprises adjusting the number of NZC (non-zero coefficient) values representing each of the plurality of prediction information to adjust the overhead for each of the plurality of prediction information.
Karri discloses that the generating comprises adjusting the number of NZC (non-zero coefficient) values representing each of the plurality of prediction information to adjust the overhead for each of the plurality of prediction information (the number of non-zero coefficients determines the number of bits of PMI, according to [0103]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy as modified by Karri with Karri such that the generating comprises adjusting the number of NZC (non-zero coefficient) values representing each of the plurality of prediction information to adjust the overhead for each of the plurality of prediction information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent a high bit error rate and block error rate when the base station does not yet have full beam information (Karri: [0134]).
Regarding claim 7, Levy discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Levy does not expressly disclose that the generating comprises compressing each of the plurality of prediction information using at least one channel compression model to generate the CSI.
Karri discloses that the generating comprises compressing each of the plurality of prediction information using at least one channel compression model to generate the CSI (the CSI is generated using frequency compression, according to [0104]-[0108]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy with Karri such that the generating comprises compressing each of the plurality of prediction information using at least one channel compression model to generate the CSI.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent a high bit error rate and block error rate when the base station does not yet have full beam information (Karri: [0134]).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Levy and Karri discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Levy does not expressly disclose that the at least one channel compression model is one channel compression model, which is a model trained to allocate more bits to prediction information closer to the measurement time point by assigning a weight to such prediction information.
Karri discloses that the at least one channel compression model is one channel compression model, which is a model trained to allocate more bits to prediction information closer to the measurement time point by assigning a weight to such prediction information (CSI precoding overhead reduction over time is performed, such that the number of bits in successive CSI reports (whereby measurements are taken prior to CSI reports being sent, according to [0111]) decreases (e.g., from 550 bits in a first CSI report, to 194 bits in a second CSI report), according to [0136]-[0138], Fig. 18, whereby this overhead reduction is achieved via frequency domain compression, according to [0155]-[0156]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy as modified by Karri with Karri such that the at least one channel compression model is one channel compression model, which is a model trained to allocate more bits to prediction information closer to the measurement time point by assigning a weight to such prediction information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent a high bit error rate and block error rate when the base station does not yet have full beam information (Karri: [0134]).
Regarding claim 12, Levy discloses all the limitations of claim 1.
Levy does not expressly disclose the first communication device and the second communication device sharing a setting for the overhead of the CSI in advance through RRC (Radio Resource Control) signaling, wherein the generating comprises generating the CSI according to the pre-shared setting.
Karri discloses the first communication device and the second communication device sharing a setting for the overhead of the CSI in advance through RRC (Radio Resource Control) signaling, wherein the generating comprises generating the CSI according to the pre-shared setting (the CSI overhead reduction is controlled via a setting that the base station sends to the UE via RRC signalling, according to [0108]-[0110]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy with Karri by the first communication device and the second communication device sharing a setting for the overhead of the CSI in advance through RRC (Radio Resource Control) signaling, wherein the generating comprises generating the CSI according to the pre-shared setting.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent a high bit error rate and block error rate when the base station does not yet have full beam information (Karri: [0134]).
Regarding claim 20, Levy discloses all the limitations of claim 19.
Levy does not expressly disclose that the transmitting the stored plurality of measurement information comprises transmitting the plurality of measurement information such that measurement information corresponding to the earliest time point among the obtained plurality of measurement information has more overhead than the measurement information corresponding to the latest time point.
Karri discloses that the transmitting the stored plurality of measurement information comprises transmitting the plurality of measurement information such that measurement information corresponding to the earliest time point among the obtained plurality of measurement information has more overhead than the measurement information corresponding to the latest time point (CSI precoding overhead reduction over time is performed, such that the number of bits in successive CSI reports (whereby measurements are taken prior to CSI reports being sent, according to [0111]) decreases (e.g., from 550 bits in a first CSI report, to 194 bits in a second CSI report), according to [0136]-[0138], Fig. 18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy with Karri such that the transmitting the stored plurality of measurement information comprises transmitting the plurality of measurement information such that measurement information corresponding to the earliest time point among the obtained plurality of measurement information has more overhead than the measurement information corresponding to the latest time point.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to prevent a high bit error rate and block error rate when the base station does not yet have full beam information (Karri: [0134]).
11. Claims 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy in view of Karri as applied to claim 7 above, in view of Pezeshki et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2021/0195462 (hereinafter Pezeshki).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Levy and Karri discloses all the limitations of claim 7.
Neither Levy nor Karri expressly discloses that the at least one channel compression model comprises a plurality of channel compression models to be applied to each of the plurality of prediction information, and at least some of the plurality of channel compression models have different compression ratios.
Pezeshki discloses that the at least one channel compression model comprises a plurality of channel compression models to be applied to each of the plurality of prediction information, and at least some of the plurality of channel compression models have different compression ratios (a UE comprises a encoder that comprises a plurality of AI modules that compress channel feedback information prior to transmission to a base station, whereby the AI modules correspond to different compression ratios, according to [0030]-[0031], [0062], Fig. 5 [elements 508 and 512]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy as modified by Karri with Pezeshki such that the at least one channel compression model comprises a plurality of channel compression models to be applied to each of the plurality of prediction information, and at least some of the plurality of channel compression models have different compression ratios.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate improved spectral efficiency and lower costs (Pezeshki: [0004]).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Levy, Karri, and Pezeshki discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Neither Levy nor Karri expressly discloses that each of the plurality of channel compression models includes at least one compression layer for compression and a layer for bit size adjustment as a last layer.
Pezeshki discloses that each of the plurality of channel compression models includes at least one compression layer for compression and a layer for bit size adjustment as a last layer (the plurality of AI modules in the UE’s encoder each perform compression according to a respective compression ratio (each AI module therefore has a layer that does compression and that controls the bit size), according to [0030]-[0031], [0062], Fig. 5 [elements 508 and 512]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy as modified by Karri as modified by Pezeshki with Pezeshki such that each of the plurality of channel compression models includes at least one compression layer for compression and a layer for bit size adjustment as a last layer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate improved spectral efficiency and lower costs (Pezeshki: [0004]).
12. Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy in view of Karri in view of Pezeshki as applied to claim 8 above, in view of Guo et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2023/0422242 (hereinafter Guo).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Levy, Karri, and Pezeshki discloses all the limitations of claim 8.
Neither Levy nor Karri expressly discloses that the at least one channel compression model is one channel compression model, and the generating comprises applying the one channel compression model to each of the plurality of prediction information; and adjusting the number of bits representing each of the plurality of compressed prediction information by truncating the output of the one channel compression model.
Pezeshki discloses that the at least one channel compression model is one channel compression model, and the generating comprises applying the one channel compression model to each of the plurality of prediction information (an AI module is used to compress channel measurement information, according to [0030]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy as modified by Karri as modified by Pezeshki with Pezeshki such that the at least one channel compression model is one channel compression model, and the generating comprises applying the one channel compression model to each of the plurality of prediction information.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to facilitate improved spectral efficiency and lower costs (Pezeshki: [0004]).
Neither Levy, Karri, nor Pezeshki expressly discloses adjusting the number of bits representing each of the plurality of compressed prediction information by truncating the output of the one channel compression model.
Guo discloses adjusting the number of bits representing each of the plurality of compressed prediction information by truncating the output of the one channel compression model (compression of a CSI report is achieved via truncating bits such that a threshold number of bits is enforced, according to [0038]-[0039]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy as modified by Karri as modified by Pezeshki with Guo by adjusting the number of bits representing each of the plurality of compressed prediction information by truncating the output of the one channel compression model.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to allow a UE to resolve or manage resource collisions (Guo: [0039]).
13. Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Levy in view of Karri as applied to claim 12 above, in view of Ozturk et al., U.S. Patent Application Publication 2008/0259833 (hereinafter Ozturk).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Levy and Karri discloses all the limitations of claim 12.
Neither Levy nor Karri expressly discloses that the transmitting comprises transmitting the setting for the overhead of the CSI to the second communication device.
Ozturk discloses that the transmitting comprises transmitting the setting for the overhead of the CSI to the second communication device (a UE transmits signaling/overhead information to a Node B, according to [0031]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Levy as modified by Karri with Ozturk such that the transmitting comprises transmitting the setting for the overhead of the CSI to the second communication device.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to achieve good performance given limited UE transmit power and time varying channel conditions (Ozturk: [0006]).
Conclusion
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW W GENACK whose telephone number is (571)272-7541. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
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, Anthony Addy can be reached at 571-272-7795. 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.
/MATTHEW W GENACK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2645
Prosecution Insights