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
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.
Claim(s) 1-7, and 9-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Chae et al. (US 2021/0105055 A1). Regarding claims 1, 9, 13, Chae et al. discloses a method, comprising: transmitting, by a processor of an apparatus, a user equipment (UE) capability parameter related to a maximum supportable time span of a channel state information (CSI) reporting window for the apparatus (Para 254 teaches “a Rx UE may determine sidelink CSI reporting window size and/or upper limit and/or a lower limit based on channel variation (or coherence time, or (maximum) doppler frequency, etc.), UE (absolute/relative to Tx UE) speed, packet priority, and/or a target latency requirement.”; and receiving, by the processor, a time span of a CSI reporting window configured according to the UE capability parameter Para 254 teaches “ RX UE may determine a sidelink CSI reporting window based on a target latency requirement or priority of a packet received from the Tx UE, and then apply an offset that further reduces the sidelink CSI reporting window according to mobility. The offset according to mobility may be configured by a base station or a Tx UE”). Regarding claims 2, 14, Chae et al. discloses a method, further comprising: transmitting, by the processor, a movement parameter for configuring the time span of the CSI reporting window ( Para 254 teaches “a Rx UE may determine sidelink CSI reporting window size and/or upper limit and/or a lower limit based on channel variation (or coherence time, or (maximum) doppler frequency, etc.), UE (absolute/relative to Tx UE) speed, packet priority, and/or a target latency requirement. The Rx UE may more accurately know how fast the wireless channel changes than the Tx UE. Therefore, the Rx UE may determine the sidelink CSI reporting window based on the channel variation measured by the Rx UE. In this case, the upper bound and/or the lower bound of the sidelink CSI reporting window may be determined differently according to the priority and/or target latency requirement and/or mobility (absolute or relative speed) and this bound may be configured by the base station or preconfigured”). Regarding claims 3, 15, Chae et al. discloses a method, wherein the movement parameter includes a velocity, a Doppler shift or a Doppler spread ( Para 254 teaches “a Rx UE may determine sidelink CSI reporting window size and/or upper limit and/or a lower limit based on channel variation (or coherence time, or (maximum) doppler frequency, etc.), UE (absolute/relative to Tx UE) speed, packet priority, and/or a target latency requirement. The Rx UE may more accurately know how fast the wireless channel changes than the Tx UE. Therefore, the Rx UE may determine the sidelink CSI reporting window based on the channel variation measured by the Rx UE. In this case, the upper bound and/or the lower bound of the sidelink CSI reporting window may be determined differently according to the priority and/or target latency requirement and/or mobility (absolute or relative speed) and this bound may be configured by the base station or preconfigured”). Regarding claims 4, 10, 16, Chae et al. discloses a method, further comprising: transmitting, by the processor, a parameter related to a reduced time span of a CSI reporting window, wherein the reduced time span of the CSI reporting window is less than the configured time span of CSI reporting window; and transmitting, by the processor, at least one CSI report for the reduced time span of CSI reporting window. ( Para 254 teaches “a Rx UE may determine sidelink CSI reporting window size and/or upper limit and/or a lower limit based on channel variation (or coherence time, or (maximum) doppler frequency, etc.), UE (absolute/relative to Tx UE) speed, packet priority, and/or a target latency requirement. The Rx UE may more accurately know how fast the wireless channel changes than the Tx UE. Therefore, the Rx UE may determine the sidelink CSI reporting window based on the channel variation measured by the Rx UE. In this case, the upper bound and/or the lower bound of the sidelink CSI reporting window may be determined differently according to the priority and/or target latency requirement and/or mobility (absolute or relative speed) and this bound may be configured by the base station or preconfigured”). Regarding claims 5, 11, 17, Chae et al. discloses a method, further comprising: transmitting, by the processor, another UE capability parameter indicating whether a size of subperiod less than a time gap of CSI measurement instance is supported ( Para 254 teaches “For example, a RX UE may determine a sidelink CSI reporting window based on a target latency requirement or priority of a packet received from the Tx UE, and then apply an offset that further reduces the sidelink CSI reporting window according to mobility”). Regarding claims 6, 18, Chae et al. discloses a method, further comprising: transmitting, by the processor, another UE capability parameter indicating whether a size of subperiod less than a time gap of CSI measurement instance is supported ( Para 254 teaches “For example, a RX UE may determine a sidelink CSI reporting window based on a target latency requirement or priority of a packet received from the Tx UE, and then apply an offset that further reduces the sidelink CSI reporting window according to mobility”). Regarding claims 7, 12, 19, Chae et al. discloses a method, further comprising: transmitting, by the processor, another UE capability parameter indicating a maximum tolerable time gap of two available CSI measurement instances (Para 151 teaches of “For periodic CSI reporting, the UE may be configured with a timing and/or periodicity of a plurality of CSI reports”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 8 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chae et al. (US 2021/0105055 A1) in view of Choi et al. (US 2016/0134351 A1) Regarding claims 8, 20, Chae et al. discloses the claimed invention as set forth in claim 1 above. Chae et al. does not discloses a method, further comprising: transmitting, by the processor, a CSI fallback indicator indicating a CSI reporting mode. However Choi et al. discloses a method, further comprising: transmitting, by the processor, a CSI fallback indicator indicating a CSI reporting mode (Para 147-150 teaches of CSI Fallback request message). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of o using a CSI Fallback message of Choi et al. with the system of Chae et al. in order to provide a system for allowing user equipment’s (UEs) with dual connectivity to classify a cell group and to transmit channel state information (CSI) feedback through a representative cell to effectively transmit CSI feedback in a heterogeneous cell deployment.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AJAY P CATTUNGAL whose telephone number is (571)270-7525. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-5:00 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, Hassan Phillips can be reached at 5712723940. 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.
/AJAY CATTUNGAL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2467
Prosecution Insights