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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
--In [0001] of the specification, please insert the patent number of the parent case.
Appropriate correction is required.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,149,475, hereinafter referred to as ‘475. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of the patent and those of the instant application are similar in scope.
Regarding claim 1, ‘475 discloses a method comprising:
receiving channel state information (CSI) configuration information from a base station (BS) by a user equipment (UE) (See Claim 1);
determining a first CSI reference slot for measurements and a second CSI reference slot for computation from the CSI configuration information, wherein the second CSI reference slot occurs after the first CSI reference slot in time domain (See Claim 1);
measuring CSI reference signals (CSI-RS) of a downlink channel that is received before the first CSI reference slot for measurements (See Claim 1); and
computing CSI of the downlink channel based on the second CSI reference slot for computation, wherein the UE estimates and predicts the CSI of the downlink channel at a time starting from the second CSI reference slot for computation (See Claim 1).
While ‘475 teaches of the channel state information configuration information being channel state information reference signals configuration information and the instant application does not, omission of an element and its function in a combination in an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
Regarding claim 2, ‘475 further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the UE is configured to report the CSI in a CSI reporting slot (See Claim 2).
Regarding claim 3, ‘475 further discloses the method of Claim 2, wherein the first CSI reference slot for measurements occurs at an offset before the CSI reporting slot (See Claim 3).
Regarding claim 4, ‘475 further discloses the method of Claim 2, wherein the second CSI reference slot for computation occurs at an offset after the CSI reporting slot (See Claim 4).
Regarding claim 5, ‘475 further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the UE reports the CSI of the downlink channel that comprises at least one of a rank indicator, a precoding matrix indicator, and a channel quality indicator, to the BS (See Claim 5).
Regarding claim 6, ‘475 further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the UE is configured with multiple occasions of CSI-RS before the first CSI reference slot for CSI measurements (See Claim 6).
Regarding claim 7, ‘475 further discloses the method of Claim 6, wherein the UE estimates and predicts the CSI of the downlink channel using timing correlation of the multiple occasions of CSI-RS (See Claim 7).
Regarding claim 8, ‘475 further discloses the method of Claim 1, wherein the UE is configured with a computation period for computing the CSI of the downlink channel during the computation period (See Claim 8).
Regarding claim 9, ‘475 further discloses the method of Claim 8, wherein the computation period further comprises multiple sub-periods within the computation period (See Claim 9).
Regarding claim 10, ‘475 further discloses the method of Claim 9, wherein the computed CSI comprises both sub-period-CSI and whole-period-CSI for the downlink channel (See Claim 10).
Regarding claim 11, ‘475 discloses a User Equipment (UE) comprising:
a receiver that receives channel state information (CSI) configuration information from a base station (BS) (See Claim 11);
a control circuit that determines a first CSI reference slot for measurements and a second CSI reference slot for computation from the CSI configuration information, wherein the second CSI reference slot occurs after the first CSI reference slot in time domain (See Claim 11);
a measurement circuit that measures CSI reference signals (CSI-RS) of a downlink channel that is received before the first CSI reference slot for measurements (See Claim 11); and
a CSI handling circuit that computes CSI of the downlink channel based on the second CSI reference slot for computation, wherein the UE estimates and predicts the CSI of the downlink channel at a time starting from the second CSI reference slot for computation (See Claim 11).
While ‘475 teaches of the channel state information configuration information being channel state information reference signals configuration information and the instant application does not, omission of an element and its function in a combination in an obvious expedient if the remaining elements perform the same function as before. In re KARLSON (CCPA) 136 USPQ 184 (1963).
Regarding claim 12, ‘475 further discloses the UE of Claim 11, wherein the UE is configured to report the CSI in a CSI reporting slot (See Claim 12).
Regarding claim 13, ‘475 further discloses the UE of Claim 12, wherein the first CSI reference slot for measurements occurs at an offset before the CSI reporting slot (See Claim 13).
Regarding claim 14, ‘475 further discloses the UE of Claim 12, wherein the second CSI reference slot for computation occurs at an offset after the CSI reporting slot (See Claim 14).
Regarding claim 15, ‘475 further discloses the UE of Claim 11, wherein the UE reports the CSI of the downlink channel that comprises at least one of a rank indicator, a precoding matrix indicator, and a channel quality indicator, to the BS (See Claim 15).
Regarding claim 16, ‘475 further discloses the UE of Claim 11, wherein the UE is configured with multiple occasions of CSI-RS before the first CSI reference slot for CSI measurements (See Claim 16).
Regarding claim 17, ‘475 further discloses the UE of Claim 16, wherein the UE estimates and predicts the CSI of the downlink channel using timing correlation of the multiple occasions of CSI-RS (See Claim 17).
Regarding claim 18, ‘475 further discloses the UE of Claim 11, wherein the UE is configured with a computation period for computing the CSI of the downlink channel during the computation period (See Claim 18).
Regarding claim 19, ‘475 further discloses the UE of Claim 18, wherein the computation period further comprises multiple sub-periods within the computation period (See Claim 19).
Regarding claim 20, ‘475 further discloses the UE of Claim 19, wherein the computed CSI comprises both sub-period-CSI and whole-period-CSI for the downlink channel (See Claim 20).
Conclusion
Any response to this action should be mailed to:
Commissioner for Patents,
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
Hand delivered responses should be brought to:
Customer Service Window
Randolph Building
401 Dulany Street
Alexandria, VA 22314
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ASHLEY L SHIVERS whose telephone number is (571)270-3523. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Chirag Shah can be reached at 571-272-3144. 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.
/ASHLEY SHIVERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477 7/15/2026
Prosecution Insights