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.
Claim(s) 1-3,5,8-10,12,15-16,19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0020879 A1 to Shimezawa et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0322276 A1 to Pelletier et al.
As to claim 1, Shimezawa discloses a method performed by a terminal in a wireless communication system, the method comprising: receiving, from a base station, a feedback configuration (paragraphs 116-117, 263-268, disclosing inter alia, “The terminal 200 generates feedback information based on a configuration from the base station 100 by using the CRS, the CSI-RS and/or the CSI-IM resource.“);
quasi co-location (QCL) information for a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) (Fig. 4, paragraphs 258-263: “quasi co-locations for the dmrs for an epdcch”, wherein the DMRS for the epdcch and its quasi co-location information teach the recited QCL information);
receiving, from the base station, the PDCCH based on the QCL information for the PDCCH (paragraphs 258-263: “quasi co-locations for the dmrs for an epdcch”, wherein the DMRS for the epdcch and its quasi co-location information teach the recited QCL information; paragraphs 49-50, teaching DMRS can “be used for demodulation of an EPDCCH by the terminal 200”, teaching this limitation); and
reporting channel state information (CSI) for a CSI-RS resource configuration based on the PDCCH and the feedback configuration. (paragraphs 258-263: disclosing CSI-RS having quasi co-location as DMRS for EPDCCH, and using CSI-RS to generate feedback/CSI to report to base-station/network; paragraphs 116-117, 263-268, disclosing inter alia, “The terminal 200 generates feedback information based on a configuration from the base station 100 by using the CRS, the CSI-RS and/or the CSI-IM resource“ and “A resource of the CSI-RS and the CSI-IM, which is used for generating the feedback information may be independently generated for each CSI process.”)
Shimezawa does not appear to explicitly disclose a feedback configuration including a configuration for a wideband or a subband; receiving, from the base station, configuration information via MAC-CE signaling.
Pelletier discloses a feedback configuration including a configuration for a wideband or a subband (paragraph 135, disclosing, inter alia, “The measuring device may be configured to report a single metric in a specific subband. The measuring device may determine the subband to report for example based on eNB configuration (e.g., RRC, L2 or L1)”);
receiving, from the base station, configuration information via MAC-CE signaling (paragraph 79: “WTRU (e.g., a transmitting device or a receiving device), may be configured to maintain a periodic measurement transmission or reception activation and deactivation status. The WTRU may be activated or deactivated via a L1 (e.g., PDCCH) or L2 (e.g., MAC-CE) message, for example, originating from the controlling device. The controlling device may be an WTRU or an eNB”).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate or combine Pelletier’s teachings, with Shimezawa’s disclosure/teaching to reject this claim. In particular, to a phosita, it would have been obvious that Pelletier’s disclosed “feedback configuration including a configuration for a wideband or a subband” may be included in the “feedback configuration” disclosed in Shimezawa, so that Pelletier’s disclosed “feedback configuration including a configuration for a wideband or a subband” and Shimezawa’s “receiving, from a base station, a feedback configuration” may be combinable to reject “receiving, from a base station, a feedback configuration including a configuration for a wideband or a subband”. Also, it would have likewise been obvious that Pelletier’s MAC-CE may be utilized to convey Shimezawa’s “quasi co-location (QCL) information for a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH)”, so that Pelletier’s “receiving, from the base station, configuration information via MAC-CE signaling” and Shimezawa’s “quasi co-location (QCL) information for a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH)” may be combinable to reject “receiving, from the base station, quasi co-location (QCL) information for a physical downlink control channel (PDCCH) via MAC-CE signaling”. The cited references are directed to control/feedback signaling for wireless communications. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for wireless feedback methods (Pelletier, paragraphs 1-8; Shimezawa, paragraph 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
As to claim 2, Shimezawa and Pelletier teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Shimezawa further discloses further comprising: receiving, from the base station, a plurality of channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS) resource configurations via radio resource control (RRC) signaling (paragraphs 111-118, disclosing, inter alia, CSI-RSs, where “The base station 100 configures the CSI-RS as terminal-specific control information for the terminal 200 through RRC signaling”), wherein the CSI-RS resource configuration among the plurality of CSI-RS resource configurations is indicated by the PDCCH. (paragraphs 258-263: disclosing a particular CSI-RS having quasi co-location as DMRS for EPDCCH, and using CSI-RS to generate feedback/CSI to report to base-station/network; further see paragraph 83, teaching embodiments of csi-rs resource configuration being indicated by the pdcch/epdcch)
Shimezawa does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein each of the plurality of CSI-RS resource configurations includes a CSI-RS type and power information.
Pelletier discloses wherein each of the plurality of CSI-RS resource configurations includes a CSI-RS type and power information (paragraphs 5,71-73, disclosing CSI-RS and CSI-RS “type” as distinguished by “periodic cycles” and/or “RS resource patterns”, and “transmission power”; where CSI-RS may be periodic or aperiodic).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate or combine Pelletier’s teachings, with Shimezawa’s disclosure/teaching to reject this claim, since it would have been obvious to further include the characterizations of CSI-RS resource configurations disclosed in Pelletier, in the CSI-RS resource configurations in Shimezawa. The cited references are directed to control/feedback signaling for wireless communications. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for wireless feedback methods (Pelletier, paragraphs 1-8; Shimezawa, paragraph 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
As to claim 3, Shimezawa and Pelletier teach the method as in the parent claim 2.
Shimezawa does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the CSI-RS type is set to one of aperiodic, semi-persistent, and periodic.
Pelletier discloses wherein the CSI-RS type is set to one of aperiodic, semi-persistent, and periodic. (paragraphs 5,71-73, disclosing CSI-RS and CSI-RS “type” as distinguished by “periodic cycles” and/or “RS resource patterns”, and “transmission power”; where CSI-RS may be periodic or aperiodic).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate or combine Pelletier’s teachings, with Shimezawa’s disclosure/teaching to reject this claim, since it would have been obvious to further include the characterizations of CSI-RS resource configurations disclosed in Pelletier, in the CSI-RS resource configurations in Shimezawa. The cited references are directed to control/feedback signaling for wireless communications. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for wireless feedback methods (Pelletier, paragraphs 1-8; Shimezawa, paragraph 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
As to claim 5, Shimezawa and Pelletier teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Shimezawa discloses wherein the feedback configuration is defined for the CSI-RS resource configuration. (paragraphs 116-117, 263-268, in particular, paragraph 265, disclosing inter alia, “The terminal 200 generates feedback information based on a configuration from the base station 100 by using the CRS, the CSI-RS and/or the CSI-IM resource“)
As to claims 8-10,12, see rejections for claims 1-3,5, in the same order.
As to claims 15 and 16, see rejections for claims 1,2, in the same order.
As to claims 19-20, see rejections for claims 1,2, in the same order.
Claim(s) 4,6,17,11,13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Publication No. 2016/0020879 A1 to Shimezawa et al., in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0322276 A1 to Pelletier et al., further in view of U.S. Patent Publication No. 2013/0279437 A1 to Ng et al.
As to claim 4, Shimezawa and Pelletier teach the method as in the parent claim 2.
Shimezawa and Pelletier do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a maximum number of the plurality of CSI-RS resource configurations is prefixed.
Ng discloses wherein a maximum number of the plurality of CSI-RS resource configurations is prefixed. (paragraphs 61-63: disclosing, e.g., “maximum number of CSI-RS resources that can be configured to the UE”)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate or combine Shimezawa and Pelletier’s teachings, with Ng’s disclosure/teaching of limiting the number of CSI-RS resource configurations to a maximum, to reject this claim, since it would have been obvious to further include the characterizations of CSI-RS resource configurations disclosed in Shimezawa and Pelletier, with this “maximum” teaching of Ng, which also pertains to CSI RS resource configurations. The cited references are directed to control/feedback signaling for wireless communications. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for wireless feedback methods (Ng, paragraphs 1-14; Pelletier, paragraphs 1-8; Shimezawa, paragraph 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
As to claim 6, Shimezawa and Pelletier teach the method as in the parent claim 1.
Shimezawa and Pelletier do not appear to explicitly disclose further comprising: receiving, from the base station, a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), wherein the PDCCH includes QCL information for the PDSCH, and wherein the PDSCH is received based on the QCL information for the PDSCH.
Ng discloses further comprising: receiving, from the base station, a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), wherein the PDCCH includes QCL information for the PDSCH, and wherein the PDSCH is received based on the QCL information for the PDSCH. (paragraphs 61-63: disclosing, e.g., “UE 605 can be signaled (e.g., in the PDCCH or EPDCCH that schedules the PDSCH) which CSI-RS resource is quasi co-located with the DM-RS corresponding to the scheduled PDSCH as illustrated”)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate or combine Shimezawa and Pelletier’s teachings, with Ng’s disclosure/teaching, to reject this claim, since it would have been obvious to further characterize the CSI-RS resource configurations disclosed in Shimezawa and Pelletier, with the QCL teachings of Ng, which also pertains to CSI RS resource configurations. The cited references are directed to control/feedback signaling for wireless communications. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for wireless feedback methods (Ng, paragraphs 1-14; Pelletier, paragraphs 1-8; Shimezawa, paragraph 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
As to claim 17, Shimezawa and Pelletier teach the method as in the parent claim 16.
Shimezawa does not appear to explicitly disclose wherein the CSI-RS type is set to one of aperiodic, semi-persistent, and periodic.
Pelletier discloses wherein the CSI-RS type is set to one of aperiodic, semi-persistent, and periodic. (paragraphs 5,71-73, disclosing CSI-RS and CSI-RS “type” as distinguished by “periodic cycles” and/or “RS resource patterns”, and “transmission power”; where CSI-RS may be periodic or aperiodic).
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate or combine Pelletier’s teachings, with Shimezawa’s disclosure/teaching to reject this claim, since it would have been obvious to further include the characterizations of CSI-RS resource configurations disclosed in Pelletier, in the CSI-RS resource configurations in Shimezawa. The cited references are directed to control/feedback signaling for wireless communications. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for wireless feedback methods (Pelletier, paragraphs 1-8; Shimezawa, paragraph 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
Shimezawa and Pelletier do not appear to explicitly disclose wherein a maximum number of the plurality of CSI-RS resource configurations is prefixed.
Ng discloses wherein a maximum number of the plurality of CSI-RS resource configurations is prefixed. (paragraphs 61-63: disclosing, e.g., “maximum number of CSI-RS resources that can be configured to the UE”)
Before the effective filing date, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate or combine Shimezawa and Pelletier’s teachings, with Ng’s disclosure/teaching of limiting the number of CSI-RS resource configurations to a maximum, to reject this claim, since it would have been obvious to further include the characterizations of CSI-RS resource configurations disclosed in Shimezawa and Pelletier, with this “maximum” teaching of Ng, which also pertains to CSI RS resource configurations. The cited references are directed to control/feedback signaling for wireless communications. The suggestion/motivation would have been to improve resource allocation and signaling for wireless feedback methods (Ng, paragraphs 1-14; Pelletier, paragraphs 1-8; Shimezawa, paragraph 1-16). Furthermore, note that with regard to the claimed invention, especially the limitation above, all of the claimed elements have been shown to be known in the cited art, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions and the combination would have yielded predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art as of and before the effective filing date.
As to claims 11 and 13, see rejections for claims 4 and 6, in the same order.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 14,18 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
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHI TANG P CHENG whose telephone number is (571)272-9021. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:30AM - 6PM.
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, Asad M Nawaz can be reached at (571)272-3988. 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.
/CHI TANG P CHENG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463
