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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 8-10, 13, 16, 18-20, and 27-32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and/or 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Huang”, US 2024/0365154).
As to claim 1, Huang teaches a method in a wireless device, WD, configured to communicate with a network node (Figs. 2 and 5, terminal device and network device), the method comprising: determining an autocorrelation estimate for a channel between the WD and the network node for each time delay of M time delays, M being an integer (claim 3, paragraphs [0041], [0053], and [0057]-[0058]); and quantizing, for each time delay of the M time delays, an amplitude and phase of the autocorrelation estimate determined for the corresponding time delay (claim 4, paragraphs [0068]-[0071]); and reporting to the network node an indication of an amplitude the quantized amplitude and phase of each of the autocorrelation estimates for the M time delays (Figs. 2 and 5, step/process 210).
As to claims 2 and 27, Huang further teaches that the M time delays are selected from a group of N configured time delays, N being an integer greater than or equal to M (paragraphs [0041], [0053]-[0054], and [0057]-[0058]).
As to claims 4 and 28, Huang further teaches receiving from the network node an indication of: the N configured time delays, or the M time delays (Fig. 5, step/process 240, paragraphs [0124]-[0129]).
As to claims 8 and 29, Huang further teaches estimating the channel at multiple time instances based at least in part on at least one reference signal, wherein the multiple time instances are associated with the M time delays (Fig. 5, step 230, paragraphs [0121], [0053]-[0054], [0057]-[0058], and [0060]).
As to claims 9, 30, and 31, Huang further teaches the autocorrelation estimate for the channel for a time delay is determined based at least in part on channel estimates at least at two time instances of the multiple time instances, wherein the two time instances are separated by a time duration equal to the time delay (paragraphs [0053]-[0054], [0057]-0058], and [0060]).
As to claim 10, Huang further teaches each of the at least one reference signal is a tracking reference signal, TRS (paragraphs [0060] and [0121]).
As to claim 13, Huang further teaches determining the autocorrelation estimate for each of the M time delays based at least in part on channel estimates at the multiple time instances (paragraphs [0053]-[0054], [0057]-[0058], and [0060]).
As to claims 16 and 32, Huang further teaches that the autocorrelation estimates are determined for each of the M time delays based at least in part on at least one of a channel state information reference signal, CSI-RS, and a demodulation reference signal, DMRS, separated in time (paragraphs [0060] and [0121]).
As to claim 18, Huang further teaches receiving a configuration of at least one reference signal and a channel state information, CSI, report for reporting the autocorrelation estimates for the M time delays based on the at least one reference signal (Fig. 5, steps 210-240, paragraphs [0040], [0060], [0068], and [0120]-[121]).
As to claim 19, Huang teaches a wireless device, WD, having processing circuitry (Fig. 9, processor 910) and a radio interface (Fig. 9, input and output interfaces 930 and 940, paragraphs [0239]-[0245]) that configure the WD to: determine an autocorrelation estimate for a channel between the WD and the network node for each time delay of M time delays, M being an integer (claim 3, paragraphs [0041], [0053], and [0057]-[0058]); and quantize, for each time delay of the M time delays, an amplitude and phase of the autocorrelation estimate determined for the corresponding time delay (claim 4, paragraphs [0068]-[0071]); and report to the network node an indication of an amplitude the quantized amplitude and phase of each of the autocorrelation estimates for the M time delays (Figs. 2 and 5, step/process 210).
As to claim 20, Huang teaches a method in a network node configured to communicate with a wireless device, WD, (Figs. 2 and 5, terminal device and network device) the method comprising: configuring the WD with an autocorrelation report configuration, the autocorrelation report configuration including an indication of M time delays, M being an integer (claim 3, paragraphs [0041], [0053], and [0057]-[0058]); and configure the WD to quantize, for each of time delay of the M time delays, an amplitude and phase of an autocorrelation estimate for a channel between the WD and the network node for the corresponding time delay (claim 4, paragraphs [0068]-[0071]); and receiving from the WD an indication of an amplitude a quantized amplitude and phase of an autocorrelation estimate for a channel between the WD and the network node for each time delay of the M time delays (Figs. 2 and 5, step/process 210).
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.
Claim(s) 17 and 33-34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang in view of Shibaike et al. (hereinafter referred to as “Shibaike”, US 2025/0274799).
As to claims 17 and 33, Huang does not expressly teach reporting to the network node the indication of the autocorrelation estimates is one of semi-persistent and aperiodic.
Shibaike further teaches that the report is one of semi-persistent and aperiodic (paragraphs [0032] and [0026], based on report type information specified by the network device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to report to the network node the indication of the autocorrelation estimates is one of semi-persistent and aperiodic based on the report type information specified by the network device in order to increase flexibility and/or efficiency in reporting to the network the indication of the autocorrelation estimates.
As to claim 34, Huang further teaches receiving a configuration of at least one reference signal for reporting the autocorrelation estimates for the M time delays based on the at least one reference signal (paragraphs [0060] and [0121]).
Huang does not expressly teach receiving a configuration of a channel state information, CSI, report for reporting the autocorrelation estimates for the M time delays based on the at least one reference signal.
Shibaike further teaches receiving a configuration of a channel state information, CSI, report for reporting the autocorrelation estimates for the M time delays based on the at least one reference signal (paragraphs [0060] and [0121]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to receive a configuration of a channel state information, CSI, report (i.e., aperiodic CSI (A-CSI) or semi-persistent CSI (SP-CSI)) for reporting the autocorrelation estimates for the M time delays based on the at least one reference signal in order to increase flexibility and/or efficiency in reporting to the autocorrelation estimates the autocorrelation estimates for the M time delays based on the at least one reference signal.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Dai et al., US 2026/0059368, Figs. 6-7
Rahman et al., US 2024/0113756, abstract, Figs. 11 and 16
Irfan et al., US 2026/0074758, paragraph [0246]
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRESHTEH N AGHDAM whose telephone number is (571)272-6037. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:30-7:00 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, Chieh M Fan can be reached at 571-272-3042. 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.
/FRESHTEH N AGHDAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2632 5/26/2026
Prosecution Insights