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 § 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.
3. Claims 3-5 and 19 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the trigger state list” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 19 recites the limitation “the trigger state list” at line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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)(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.
5. Claims 1, 14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Hao et al. (US 2021/0320704 A1- IDS), hereinafter referred to as Hao.
Regarding claim 1, Hao discloses: (1) receiving, from a wireless network node, a high layer signaling including channel state information, CSI, report configuration information via higher layer signaling, such as RRC signaling, see 0074 (equivalent to receiving from a wireless network node, a high layer signaling including channel state information report configuration information); (2) for aperiodic and semi-persistent CSI on the physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH), the BS may signal the UE a CSI report trigger indicating for the UE to send a CSI report for one or more CSI-RS resources, or configuring the CSI-RS report trigger state. The CSI report trigger for aperiodic CSI and semi-persistent CSI on PUSCH may be provided via downlink control information (DCI). The CSI- RS trigger may be signaling indicating to the UE that CSI-RS will be transmitted for the CSI-RS resource, see 0076 (equivalent to receiving, from the wireless network node, a first signaling including a CSI report trigger state indication or a pattern indication); (3) the UE to send a CSI report, see 0076 (equivalent to reporting CSI according to the high layer signaling and the first signaling).
Regarding claim 14, Hao discloses the CSI report trigger for aperiodic CSI and semi-persistent CSI on PUSCH may be provided via downlink control information (DCI), see 0076.
Regarding claim 18, this claim has similar limitations to those of claim 1. Therefore, it is rejected under Hao for the same reasons as set forth in the rejection of claim 1. The UE 120-fig.4 includes controller processor 480 and TX MIMO processor 466 configured to perform the claimed steps.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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.
7. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
8. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
9. 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.
10. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao in view of Yum et al. (US 2019/0222283 A1), hereinafter Yum.
Regarding claim 2, Hao discloses a CSI report configuration and a CSI-RS resource configuration, see abstract and 0084, except a trigger state list.
Yum, from the same field of endeavor as Hao, teaches a list of one or two trigger states, see 0237.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ a list of trigger state as a trigger state list taught by Yum into the system of Hao. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide an improved CSI reporting mechanism to be compatible with next-generation wireless communication systems.
11. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao in view of Zhang et al. (US 2023/0268968 A1), hereinafter Zhang.
Regarding claim 11, Hao discloses all claimed limitations, except wherein a semi-persistent CSI report configuration in the CSI report configuration information is associated with an aperiodic CSI report configuration or a trigger state which is in an aperiodic trigger state list.
Zhang from the same field of endeavor as Hao teaches the UE 115-fig.5A&B configured for aperiodic/semi-persistent CSI report, see 0007, 0097.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ an aperiodic/semi-persistent CSI report taught by Zhang into the system of Hao. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to provide some of the trigger states that include at least one carrier indicator identifying at least one component carrier for CSI measurement in a multi-carrier configuration.
12. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hao in view of Lin et al. (US 2020/0396684 A1), hereinafter Lin.
Regarding claim 17, Hao discloses all claimed limitations, except transmitting, to the wireless network node, assistance information comprising at least one of a maximum number of ports, a preferred pattern or a fallback ask.
Lin from the same field of endeavor as Hao teaches a UE can transmit its preferred maximum TX antenna ports for UL data transmission to gNB. The reported maximum TX antenna ports for UL data transmission can be used as assistance information, see 0166.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to employ assistance information comprising maximum number of antenna ports, e.g., maximum TX antenna ports, taught by Lin into the system of Hao. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been used to apply directly as UE capability relating to managing UE operation in connected mode discontinuous reception (C-DRX).
Allowable subject matter
13. Claims 6-10, 12-13, 15-16 and 20 are rejected based on its dependency, would be allowable if rewritten or amended to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
14. Claims 3-5 and 19 are rejected based on its dependency, but would be allowable if rewritten or amended to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
15. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kang et al (US 2019/0058517); Jin et al. (US 2019/0306915)
are cited, and considered pertinent to the instant specification.
16. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DUC C HO whose telephone number is (571)272-3147 (Duc.ho@uspto.gov). The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8am-4pm.
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, Gary Mui can be reached on 571-270-1420 (Gary.mui@uspto.gov). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DUC C HO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights