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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) was/were submitted on 09/18/2024 and 03/04/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement(s) is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim(s) 1, 10, 11, 22, and 27 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, this claim recites “beam-common” in line 7. It is unclear the exact technical definition of the claimed term “beam-common” and how “beam-common time-domain (TD) basis set selection” relates to the operation of the claimed UE. For purposes of examination, Examiner interpreted the term “beam-common” as “common beam”.
The rationale set forth the above regarding independent claim 1 is applicable to independent claims 11, 22, and 27.
Regarding claim 10, this claim recites “quantity parameter” in line 1-3. It is unclear which quantities the claimed “quantity parameter” may relate to.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 9, 11, 20, 22-24, and 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Ramireddy et al. ( US 2022/0029676 A1), IDS submitted on 03/04/2026, hereinafter referred to as Ramireddy.
Regarding claim 1 Ramireddy teaches: A user equipment (UE) for wireless communication ( see ¶[0228], The present invention provides…a user equipment comprising), comprising:
a memory ( see ¶[0228], a user equipment comprising a processor and a memory); and one or more processors, coupled to the memory, configured to ( see ¶[0228], The present invention provides…a user equipment comprising a processor and a memory, said memory containing instructions executable by said processor ):
receive one or more channel state information (CSI) reference signals (RSs) (CSI-RSs) (see ¶[0244], At a step 250, the gNB or base station sends a CSI-RS configuration and CSI report configuration to the UE; ¶[0268]; FIG. 4, steps 250 and steps 252 );
and transmit a CSI report associated with the one or more CSI-RSs ( see ¶[0273], sends , at step 260 , the CSI report to the gNB; FIG. 4 steps 260), wherein the CSI report is associated with a beam-common time-domain (TD) basis set selection ( see ¶[0378], Common Subset Selection and Reporting of Delay DFT Vectors; ¶[0379], in accordance with embodiments, in order to reduce the UE calculation complexity for calculating the precoder matrix and feedback overhead for indicating the selected delay DFT vectors, the UE selects from the second codebook a subset of Du (l)=D delay DFT vectors, which are common to all beam indices, i.e., dp,u,d (l)=dd (l); ¶[0381], … the UE reports an information/indication of the selected D delay DFT vectors, common to all beam indices, to the gNB as a part of the CSI report) and one or more per-beam TD basis subset selections from the beam-common TD basis set selection ( see ¶[0391], In accordance with embodiments, the UE reports information of the selected Dp,u′≤D delay DFT vectors per beam index (u) and per polarization index (p), out of the selected set of D common DFT delay vectors to the gNB; ¶[00395], The information of the selected delay vectors per beam … is reported to the gNB as a part of the CSI report ).
Regarding claim 2, Ramireddy teaches: The UE of claim 1, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: select a set of beam-common TD bases from a TD codebook (¶[0379], in accordance with embodiments, in order to reduce the UE calculation complexity for calculating the precoder matrix and feedback overhead for indicating the selected delay DFT vectors, the UE selects from the second codebook a subset of Du (l)=D delay DFT vectors, which are common to all beam indices, i.e., dp,u,d (l)=dd (l); ¶[0381], … the UE reports an information/indication of the selected D delay DFT vectors, common to all beam indices, to the gNB as a part of the CSI report), and wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the CSI report, are configured to: transmit the CSI report based at least in part on selecting the set of beam-common TD bases ( see ¶[0391], In accordance with embodiments, the UE reports information of the selected Dp,u′≤D delay DFT vectors per beam index (u) and per polarization index (p), out of the selected set of D common DFT delay vectors to the gNB; ¶[0395], The information of the selected delay vectors per beam … is reported to the gNB as a part of the CSI report ).
Regarding claim 3, Ramireddy teaches: The UE of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors are further configured to: select one or more subsets of per-beam TD bases from the beam-common TD basis set selection (¶[0379], in accordance with embodiments, in order to reduce the UE calculation complexity for calculating the precoder matrix and feedback overhead for indicating the selected delay DFT vectors, the UE selects from the second codebook a subset of Du (l)=D delay DFT vectors, which are common to all beam indices, i.e., dp,u,d (l)=dd (l); ¶[0381], … the UE reports an information/indication of the selected D delay DFT vectors, common to all beam indices, to the gNB as a part of the CSI report); and wherein the one or more processors, to transmit the CSI report, are configured to:
transmit the CSI report based at least in part on selecting the one or more subsets of per-beam TD bases ( see ¶[0391], In accordance with embodiments, the UE reports information of the selected Dp,u′≤D delay DFT vectors per beam index (u) and per polarization index (p), out of the selected set of D common DFT delay vectors to the gNB; ¶[0395], The information of the selected delay vectors per beam … is reported to the gNB as a part of the CSI report ).
Regarding claim 9, Ramireddy teaches: wherein the beam-common TD basis set selection and the one or more per-beam TD basis subset selections are on a per-layer basis ( see ¶[0382], The UE selects the D DFT vectors for the l-th layer from a single subgroup; ¶[0138]; the selected D delay DFT vectors common for one layer, or a subset of layers or for all layers ).
Regarding claim 11, Ramireddy teaches: A network node for wireless communication, comprising: a memory; and one or more processors, coupled to the memory ( see ¶[0228], a network node comprising a processor and a memory, said memory containing instructions executable by said processor ) , configured to:
transmit one or more channel state information (CSI) reference signals (RSs) (CSI-RSs) (see ¶[0244], At a step 250, the gNB or base station sends a CSI-RS configuration and CSI report configuration to the UE; ¶[0268]; FIG. 4, steps 250 and steps 252 ); and
receive a CSI report associated with the one or more CSI-RSs ( see ¶[0273], sends , at step 260 , the CSI report to the gNB; FIG. 4 steps 260), wherein the CSI report is associated with a beam-common time-domain (TD) basis set selection ( see ¶[0378], Common Subset Selection and Reporting of Delay DFT Vectors; ¶[0379], in accordance with embodiments, in order to reduce the UE calculation complexity for calculating the precoder matrix and feedback overhead for indicating the selected delay DFT vectors, the UE selects from the second codebook a subset of Du (l)=D delay DFT vectors, which are common to all beam indices, i.e., dp,u,d (l)=dd (l); ¶[0381], … the UE reports an information/indication of the selected D delay DFT vectors, common to all beam indices, to the gNB as a part of the CSI report) and one or more per-beam TD basis subset selections from the beam-common TD basis set selection ( see ¶[0391], In accordance with embodiments, the UE reports information of the selected Dp,u′≤D delay DFT vectors per beam index (u) and per polarization index (p), out of the selected set of D common DFT delay vectors to the gNB; ¶[00395], The information of the selected delay vectors per beam … is reported to the gNB as a part of the CSI report ).
Claim 20 recites similar limitations of claim 9 and is thus rejected under the similar rationale.
Claim 22 recites similar limitations of claim 1 and is thus rejected under the similar rationale.
Claim 23 recites similar limitations of claim 2 and is thus rejected under the similar rationale.
Claim 24 recites similar limitations of claim 3 and is thus rejected under the similar rationale.
Claim 27 recites similar limitations of claim 11 and is thus rejected under the similar rationale.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 4-5, 15-16, and 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramireddy in view of Grossmann et al. (US 2025/0202546 A1), hereinafter referred to as Grossmann.
Regarding claim 4, Ramireddy teaches the UE of claim 1. Ramireddy, however, fails to explicitly teach information related to wherein the CSI report includes a first field associated with the beam-common TD basis set selection and a second field associated with the one or more per-beam TD basis subset selections.
However, Grossmann, in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches: The UE of claim 1, wherein the CSI report includes a first field associated with the beam-common TD basis set selection and a second field associated with the one or more per-beam TD basis subset selections ( see Grossmann ¶[0124], the selected one or more basis vectors from the first, second, and third basis sets of the precoder are indicated by a bitmap in the CSI report, wherein each bit is associated with selected basis vectors from the first, second, and third basis sets and a combining coefficient of the precoder; and see first bitmap and second bitmap disclosed in ¶[0275] ).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramireddy's teachings with Grossmann's above teaching, reducing the feedback overhead and the computational complexity at the wireless device for codebook-based CSI reporting ( see ¶[0055] ). Known work in one field of endeavor (Grossmann prior art) may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or different one (Ramireddy prior art) based on design incentives ( reducing the feedback overhead and the computational complexity at the wireless device for codebook-based CSI reporting) or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one or ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches: The UE of claim 4, wherein a set of bases conveyed in the first field is associated with
PNG
media_image1.png
43
239
media_image1.png
Greyscale
wherein D represents a quantity of possible TD bases and S represents a quantity of selected TD bases ( see Ramireddy ¶[0381], , the UE reports an information/indication of the selected D delay DFT vectors, common to all beam indices, to the gNB as a part of the CSI report. The selected D delay DFT vectors may be indicated using
PNG
media_image2.png
53
91
media_image2.png
Greyscale
) .
Claim 15 and 25 recite similar limitations of claim 4 and are thus rejected under the similar rationale.
Claim 16 recites similar limitations of claim 5 and is thus rejected under the similar rationale.
Claim(s) 13-14 and 29-30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramireddy in view of Koskela et al. ( US 2020/0145860 A1), hereinafter referred to as Koskela.
Claim 13 recites: The network node of claim 11, wherein a set of beam-common TD bases is selected from a TD codebook. Although Ramireddy teaches (¶[0379], in accordance with embodiments, in order to reduce the UE calculation complexity for calculating the precoder matrix and feedback overhead for indicating the selected delay DFT vectors, the UE selects from the second codebook a subset of Du (l)=D delay DFT vectors, which are common to all beam indices, i.e., dp,u,d (l)=dd (l); ¶[0381], … the UE reports an information/indication of the selected D delay DFT vectors, common to all beam indices, to the gNB as a part of the CSI report), Ramireddy, however, fails to explicitly teach the functions are performed by the network node.
However, Koskela, in the same or similar field of endeavor teaches (see ¶[0110] In some examples an IAB node may implement both UE and gNB functionality).
It would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ramireddy's teachings with Koskela's above teaching in order to improve communication efficiency.
Regarding claim 14, Ramireddy and Koskela combination teaches: The network node of claim 13, wherein one or more subsets of per-beam TD bases are selected from the beam-common TD basis set selection ( see ¶[0391], In accordance with embodiments, the UE reports information of the selected Dp,u′≤D delay DFT vectors per beam index (u) and per polarization index (p), out of the selected set of D common DFT delay vectors to the gNB; ¶[0395], The information of the selected delay vectors per beam … is reported to the gNB as a part of the CSI report; Koskela ¶[0110] In some examples an IAB node may implement both UE and gNB functionality ).
Claim 29 recites similar limitations of claim 13 and is thus rejected under the similar rationale.
Claim 30 recites similar limitations of claim 14 and is thus rejected under the similar rationale.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim(s) 6-8, 10, 12, 17-19, 21, 26, and 28 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office Action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Wu et al. (US 2021/0391910 A1) Channel state information (csi) with spatial and time domain compression
Hao et al. (WO 2021/035396 A1), Csi mapping and omission with td compression
Zhang et al. (US 2025/0373296 A1), Method and systems for csi reporting enhancement for type ii pmi prediction
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MANG BOI THAWNG whose telephone number is (703)756-4751. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 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, Ayaz Sheikh can be reached at (571)272-3795. 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.
/MANG BOI THAWNG/Examiner, Art Unit 2476 /AYAZ R SHEIKH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2476
Prosecution Insights