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 § 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hwang (US 20230379982 A1), hereinafter, Hwang, in view of Park (US 20200313743 A1), hereinafter, Park.
Regarding claim 1:
Hwang discloses a method of a first user equipment (UE) (Fig. 8, transmitter UE), comprising:
transmitting, to a second UE (Fig. 8, receiver UE), a channel state information (CSI) request requesting to report CSI for transmission beam(s) (Fig. 8, S830; paragraph [0150]);
transmitting a pre-configured signal (Fig. 8, CSI-RS in step S830) to the second UE through the transmission beam(s) paragraph [0150]); and
receiving, from the second UE, a CSI report for the transmission beam(s) (Fig. 8. S831; paragraph [0151]. Second UE measures the received pre-configured signal CSI-RS and generates a report which is received by the first UE), wherein the CSI request includes information (Paragraph [0150], 1-bit indicator in the SCI).
However, Hwang fails to explicitly disclose the CSI request includes information on a type of the pre-configured signal for beam management, and the information on the type of the pre-configured signal indicates at least one of a CSI-reference signal (CSI-RS), a synchronization signal (SS), or a demodulation reference signal (DMRS).
However, Park discloses the CSI request includes information on a type of the pre-configured signal for beam management, and the information on the type of the pre-configured signal indicates at least one of a CSI-reference signal (CSI-RS), a synchronization signal (SS), or a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) (Paragraphs [0174]- [0176], value for CSI request field in the SCI indicates whether or not CSI-RS will be transmitted, i.e. the type is indicated and the type indicates CSI-RS (other limitations are optional and hence not required)).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date that Hwang’s CSI request includes information on a type of the pre-configured signal for beam management, and the information on the type of the pre-configured signal indicates at least one of a CSI-reference signal (CSI-RS), a synchronization signal (SS), or a demodulation reference signal (DMRS) as disclosed by Park. It would have been obvious because it allows for dynamically indicating information to the receiving UE so it can respond accordingly.
Regarding claim 8:
Claim 8 is rejected as being obvious over Hwang in view of Park based on a rationale similar to the one used to reject claim 1 above. Claim 1 is disclosed from the point of view of the first UE (transmitter UE in Fig. 8 of Hwang) and claim 8 claims the same method from the point of view of the second UE (receiver UE in Fig. 8 of Hwang).
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is rejected as being obvious over Hwang in view of Park based on a rationale similar to the one used to reject claim 1 above. Hwang also discloses the claimed processor (Fig. 2, paragraphs [0078]-[0083]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 9-14 and 16-20 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Shin et al. (US 20210099265 A1) discloses sidelink communications between two UEs CSI-RS and CSI reporting.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VINEETA S PANWALKAR whose telephone number is (571)272-8561. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00am-5pm.
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, David C. Payne can be reached at 571-272-3024. 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.
/VINEETA S PANWALKAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2635
Prosecution Insights