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 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)(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.
(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, 2-3, 5-7, 16 and 20-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2020/0119797, Wang hereafter).
RE claims 1 and 3, Wang discloses a method and a user equipment (UE) for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory (Figure 8), configured to: generate multiple channel state information (CSI) reports that are linked together for coherent joint transmission (CJT) with multiple transmit receive points (TRPs) (Figure 4; 89-91); and transmit the multiple CSI reports that are linked (Figure 4 and paragraphs 118-119, joint reporting CSI to two network devices/TRPs).
RE claim 5, Wang discloses the UE of claim 3 as set forth above. Note that Wang further discloses wherein each CSI report of the multiple CSI reports is associated with one or more TRPs (Figure 4 and paragraphs 118-119, joint reporting CSI to two network devices/TRPs).
RE claim 6, Wang discloses the UE of claim 3 as set forth above. Note that Wang further discloses wherein each CSI report of the multiple CSI reports is configured with a respective single CSI reference signal resource or channel measurement resource (Figure 4 and paragraphs 118-119, joint reporting CSI to two network devices/TRPs).
RE claim 7, Wang discloses the UE of claim 3 as set forth above. Note that Wang further discloses wherein the multiple CSI reports share a same channel quality indicator (Paragraph 215).
RE claim 16, Wang discloses the UE of claim 3 as set forth above. Note that Wang further discloses wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the multiple CSI reports, are configured to transmit the multiple CSI reports based at least in part on a same CSI reporting configuration (Figure 4 and paragraphs 118-119, joint reporting CSI to two network devices/TRPs).
RE claims 2 and 20, Wang discloses a method and a network entity for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory (Figure 10), configured to: receive multiple channel state information (CSI) reports that are linked together for coherent joint transmission (CJT) with multiple transmit receive points (TRPs) (Figure 4; 89-91); and transmit a downlink channel based at least in part on the multiple CSI reports being linked(Figure 4 and paragraphs 118-119, joint reporting CSI to two network devices/TRPs)..
RE claim 21, Wang discloses the UE of claim 3 as set forth above. Note that Wang further discloses
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.
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.
Claims 4, 8-9 and 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hindy et al. (US 2023/034486, Hindy hereafter).
RE claim 4, Wang discloses the UE of claim 3 as set forth above. Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the multiple CSI reports are linked together for eType-II CJT.
However, Hindy teaches wherein the multiple CSI reports are linked together for eType-II CJT (Paragraphs 114 and 115).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE of Wang with the teachings of Hindy since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 8 and 22, Wang discloses the UE of claim 3 and network entity of claim 2 as set forth above. Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the multiple CSI reports share one or more layers.
However, Hindy teaches wherein the multiple CSI reports share one or more layers (Paragraphs 112-115).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE of Wang with the teachings of Hindy since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 9 and 23, Wang discloses the UE of claim 3 and network entity of claim 2 as set forth above. Wang does not explicitly disclose wherein the multiple CSI reports indicate one or more layers that are linked.
However, Hindy teaches wherein the multiple CSI reports indicate one or more layers that are linked (Paragraphs 112-115).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE of Wang with the teachings of Hindy since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claims 10-11 and 24-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hindy and further in view of Huang et al. (US 2022/0029675, Huang hereafter).
RE claims 10 and 24, Wang in view of Hindy discloses the UE of claim 9 and network entity of claim 23 as set forth above. Wang in view of Hindy does not explicitly disclose wherein each of the one or more layers that are linked correspond to a coefficient matrix associated with co-phase or amplitude coefficients.
However, Huang teaches wherein each of the one or more layers that are linked correspond to a coefficient matrix associated with co-phase or amplitude coefficients (Paragraphs 78-79).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE of Wang in view of Hindy with the teachings of Huang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 11 and 25, Wang in view of Hindy discloses the UE of claim 9 and network entity of claim 23 as set forth above. Wang in view of Hindy does not explicitly disclose wherein the multiple CSI reports indicate co-phase or amplitude coefficients for each layer of the one or more layers that are linked.
However, Huang teaches wherein the multiple CSI reports indicate co-phase or amplitude coefficients for each layer of the one or more layers that are linked (Paragraphs 78-79).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE of Wang in view of Hindy with the teachings of Huang since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 12-13 and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hindy, in view of Huang and further in view of Hao (WO2020/173402, Hao hereafter).
RE claims 12, Wang in view of Hindy and further in view of Huang discloses the UE of claim 11 as set forth above. Wang in view of Hindy and further in view of Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the co-phase or amplitude coefficients are indicated per precoder matrix indicator pair.
However, Hao teaches wherein the co-phase or amplitude coefficients are indicated per precoder matrix indicator pair (Paragraphs 57, 61 and 65).
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the network entity of Wang in view of Hindy and further in view of Huang with the teachings of Hao since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 13, Wang in view of Hindy and further in view of Huang discloses the UE of claim 11 as set forth above. Wang in view of Hindy and further in view of Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the co-phase or amplitude coefficients are indicated per polarization.
However, Hao teaches wherein the co-phase or amplitude coefficients are indicated per polarization (Paragraphs 57, 61 and 65)
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the network entity of Wang in view of Hindy and further in view of Huang with the teachings of Hao since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
RE claims 26, Wang in view of Hindy and further in view of Huang discloses the network entity of claim 25 as set forth above. Wang in view of Hindy and further in view of Huang does not explicitly disclose wherein the co-phase or amplitude coefficients are indicated per precoder matrix indicator pair or per polarization.
However, Hao teaches wherein the co-phase or amplitude coefficients are indicated per precoder matrix indicator pair or per polarization (Paragraphs 57, 61 and 65)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the network entity of Wang in view of Hindy and further in view of Huang with the teachings of Hao since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang in view of Hindy and further in view of (Liu et al. (US 2024/0179724, Liu hereafter) .
RE claim 17, Wang in view of Hindy discloses the UE of claim 3 as set forth above. Wang in view of Hindy does not explicitly disclose wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the multiple CSI reports, are configured to transmit the multiple CSI reports based at least in part on receiving a trigger state field that is a configuration for the multiple CSI reports.
However, Liu teaches wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the multiple CSI reports, are configured to transmit the multiple CSI reports based at least in part on receiving a trigger state field that is a configuration for the multiple CSI reports (Paragraph 92 teaches: “In the embodiments of the present disclosure, joint coding and indication are achieved in accordance with the triggering state activated through the CSI request field in the DCI and the codebook parameter, i.e., one triggering state corresponds to not only one or more pieces of aperiodic or semi-persistent CSI reporting, but also one or more codebook parameters or a combination of the codebook parameters, so that the UE determines a corresponding CSI report ID and codebook parameter in accordance with a coding method.”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the UE of Wang in view of Hindy with the teachings of Liu since such a modification would have involved the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement.
Where a claimed improvement on a device or apparatus is no more than "the simple substitution of one known element for another or the mere application of a known technique to a piece of prior art ready for improvement," the claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. 103(a). Ex Parte Smith, 83 USPQ.2d 1509, 1518-19 (BPAI, 2007) (citing KSR v. Teleflex, 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1740, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1396 (2007)).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 15, 18, 19, 27, 28, 29 and 30 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
RE claims 14 and 27, prior arts fail to explicitly disclose, teach or suggest wherein one CSI report of the multiple CSI reports has a strongest coefficient indicator (SCI) aligned at a first frequency domain basis.
RE claims 15 and 28, the claims depend upon one of claims 14 or 27 and thereby each include the allowable matter above.
RE claims 18 and 29, prior arts fail to explicitly disclose, teach or suggest herein the one or more processors, to transmit the multiple CSI reports, are configured to transmit the multiple CSI reports based at least in part on respecting a UE capability that is associated with one or more of a sum of quantities of ports for linked CSI reports or a sum of quantities of CSI resources for the linked CSI reports.
RE claims 19 and 30, the claims depend upon one of claims 18 or 29 and thereby each include the allowable matter above..
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to James P Duffy whose telephone number is (571)270-7516. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Friday, 9am-6pm EST.
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, Huy D Vu can be reached at 571-272-3155. 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.
/James P Duffy/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2461
Prosecution Insights