DETAILED ACTION
1. The following Office Action is based on the preliminary amendment filed on 30 July 2024, having claims 1-12 and 16-23 (claims 13-15 were cancelled).
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
2. 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 § 103
3. 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.
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.
Claims 1, 9, 16-17, and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable Matsumura et al. (US 2025/0024477 A1) in view of Bai et al. (US 2024/0429986 A1).
For claims 1, 12 and 17, Matsumura discloses a user equipment (UE) (Fig 15, user terminal 20) for wireless communication, the UE comprising: a processor (Fig 15, processor 1001); a memory (Fig 15, memory 1002) coupled to the processor; and a transceiver (Fig 15, communication apparatus 1004) coupled to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to cause the UE to:
transmit, via the transceiver, one or two UE capability value set index or indices in a beam report, where each UE capability value set index indicates a supported UE capability value set ([0058] the UE reports a list of UE capability value sets in a beam report transmitted to the base station); and
determine Sounding Reference Signal (SRS) resource(s) used for codebook transmission ([0045-0046] for codebook transmission, the UE determines SRS resource(s) indicator(s) for the PUSCH transmission wherein the SRI is indicated to the UE via DCI; [0075] the association between the SRS resource set and a panel ID corresponding to the UE capability value set may be indicated to the UE by higher signaling).
For claims 1, 12 and 17, Matsumura does not expressly disclose that SRS to be transmitted is determined after receiving an acknowledgement for the transmitted UE capability value set index or indices.
Bai, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the base station sending a feedback (ACK) message to the UE [0051] in response to receiving a report comprising the UE capability value set [0050]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the feedback method of Bai in the communication network of Matsumura at the time of the invention to communicate to the UE successful receipt of the UE capability value set.
For claims 9, 16, and 20, Matsumura discloses the processor is further configured to cause the UE to transmit, via the transceiver, one or multiple supported UE capability value sets, wherein each supported UE capability value set indicates a maximum number of supported SRS ports ([0053] the UE capability value set indicates the maximum number of SRS ports supported).
For claim 21, Matsumura discloses a base unit (Fig 15, base station 10) for wireless communication, the base unit comprising: a processor (Fig 15, processor 1001); a memory (Fig 15, memory 1002) coupled to the processor; and a transceiver (Fig 15, communication apparatus 1004) coupled to the processor, wherein the processor is configured to cause the base unit to:
receive, via the transceiver, one or two user equipment (UE) capability value set index or indices in a beam report, where each UE capability value set index indicates a supported UE capability value set ([0058] the UE reports a list of UE capability value sets in a beam report transmitted to the base station); and
determine Sounding Reference Signal (SRS) resource(s) used for codebook transmission ([0045-0046] for codebook transmission, the UE determines SRS resource(s) indicator(s) for the PUSCH transmission wherein the SRI is indicated to the UE via DCI; [0075] the association between the SRS resource set and a panel ID corresponding to the UE capability value set may be indicated to the UE by higher signaling).
For claim 21, Matsumura does not expressly disclose that SRS to be transmitted is determined after receiving an acknowledgement for the transmitted UE capability value set index or indices.
Bai, from the same or similar field of endeavor, teaches the base station sending a feedback (ACK) message to the UE [0051] in response to receiving a report comprising the UE capability value set [0050]. Thus, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to implement the feedback method of Bai in the communication network of Matsumura at the time of the invention to communicate to the UE successful receipt of the UE capability value set.
Allowable Subject Matter
4. Claims 2-8, 18-19, and 22-23 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
5. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 form.
6. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Elisabeth B Magloire whose telephone number is (571)272-5601. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 AM-5 PM ET.
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, Sujoy K Kundu can be reached at 571-272-8586. 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.
/ELISABETH BENOIT MAGLOIRE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights