DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims Status
2. The response filed on November 13, 2025 has been entered and made of record.
3. Claims 29, 31-33, 35-37 and 40-41 have been amended.
4. Claims 1-28, 30, 34, 38 and 42 were cancelled.
5. Claims 45-52 are newly added.
6. Claims 29, 31-33, 35-37. 39-41 and 43-52 are currently pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
7. The Examiner has considered the reference(s) listed on the Information Disclosure Statements submitted on November 13, 2025 and November 17, 2025.
Terminal Disclaimer
8. The terminal disclaimer filed on November 13, 2025 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of any patent granted on Application Numbers 16/581,828 and 16/802,093 have been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Interview regarding 35 USC § 101 and 35 USC § 112
9. Examiner contacted the Applicant’s representative and indicated that current amended independent claims may raise 101 abstract issue under the broader abstract concepts in view of the court decisions related to data processing: using categories to organize, store and transmit information (Cyberfone: 18 see Section IV.B.5.) and potential 112 rejection as noted. To expedite the patent prosecution, Examiner inquired the Applicant additional clarifications. Applicant specifically requested the official office action and did not result in specific agreement.
Response to Arguments
10. The applicant's arguments filed on November 13, 2025 regarding claims 1-3, 5-12 and 14-18 have been fully considered but are moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection. The rejection has been revised and set forth below according to the amended claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
11. 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.
12. There are two separate requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b). MPEP § 2171. The first is subjective and requires that the claims must set forth the subject matter that the Applicants regard as their invention. Id. The second is objective and requires that the claims must particularly point out and distinctively define the metes and bounds of the subject matter that will be protected by the patent grant (i.e., whether the scope of the claim is clear to one of ordinary skill in the art). Id.
13. Claims 31, 32, 35, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 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 as the invention.
Regarding claim 31, the claim further recites:
“…DMRS port number(s) indexed by the index value”.
Claim 31 depends on claim 29 and it is unclear whether “DMRS port number(s) indexed by the index value” in claim 31 is referring back to “…a number of bits for index values” of claim 29.
Applicant is required to appropriately address, clarify, and correct as applicable.
Claims 32, 35, 36, 39, 40, 43 and 44 are also rejected for the same reason as forth above in claim 31.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
14. 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
15. Claims 29, 33, 37 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
Regarding claims 29, 33, 37 and 41,
Claims 29, 33, 37 and 41 recite “A terminal or a network device comprising:
…transmitting/receiving capability information related to a 1st parameter and a 2nd parameter…,
…wherein up to 12 transmission layers are supported for DMRS Configuration 2 if the 2nd parameter indicates 2 symbols”.
Analysis:
Thus, claims 29, 33, 37 and 41 are directed to a process statutory category (STEP 1: YES).
Further, the claims 29, 33, 37 and 41 recite the steps/functions of “…transmitting/receiving capability information related to a 1st parameter and a 2nd parameter…,…wherein up to 12 transmission layers are supported for DMRS Configuration 2 if the 2nd parameter indicates 2 symbols”. The concept of transmitting/receiving capability information related to a 1st parameter and a 2nd parameter is found and directed to be an abstract idea. Therefore, the claims 29, 33, 37 and 41 are directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) (STEP 2A: YES).
The body of the claims 29, 33, 37 and 41 only discuss transmitting/receiving capability information related to a 1st parameter and a 2nd parameter at the terminal and the network device. Therefore, the claimed elements do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception (the claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because they do not recite sufficient structure to constitute anything "significantly more" than something that can be accomplished by a person writing in a paper). (STEP 2B: NO).
In view of the above analysis, claims 29, 33, 37 and 41 are held to be patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. See July 2015 Update: Interim Eligibility Guidance Identifying Abstract Ideas in view of the recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court, including Alice Corp., Myriad, and Mayo. This concept may reasonably fall under the broader abstract concepts in view of the court decisions related to data processing: using categories to organize, store and transmit information (Cyberfone: 18 see Section IV.B.5.); or comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options (SmartGene: 17 see Section IV.B.4.) or collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in memory (Content Extraction v. Wells Fargo).
Regarding claims 31-32, 35-36, 39-40, 43-52, even though some of the claim elements when viewed individually do not amount to significantly more, when identifying the additional elements, and viewed as a combination, result in the claim amounting to significantly more than simply using categories to organize, store and transmit information (or) comparing new and stored information and using rules to identify options (or) collecting data, recognizing certain data within the collected data set, and storing that recognized data in memory. The claimed invention addresses additional steps of meaningful limitations that add more than generally linking of the use of the abstract idea. These limitations, when taken as a combination, amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Therefore, the claim recites patent eligible subject matter.
Allowable Subject Matter
16. Claims 29, 31-33, 35-37. 39-41 and 43-52 would be allowable under or contingent upon the following conditions: (1) that applicant overcome 112 and 101 rejections and (2) that all independent claims were submitted in a formal response.
[Note: In the case of given the scope of the claimed amendments and/or the arguments would require further consideration or search may result in new ground(s) of rejection. The examiner notes the above limitation(s) are not taken alone but in view of the entirety of the claim language including any preceding claim limitation, any proceeding claim limitations, and any intervening claim limitations.]
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
All the claims are considered allowable if applicant overcome obvious double patenting rejection since no prior art reference alone or combination of prior art references disclose or suggest the combination of limitations specified in the independent claims including:
“wherein the number of bits for index values of each of the tables is determined based on a combination of the 1st parameter and the 2nd parameter, wherein the maximum number of DMRS ports being supported depends on the 1st parameter, wherein up to 4 transmission layers are supported for the DMRS Configuration 1 if the 2nd parameter indicates 1 symbol, wherein up to 8 transmission layers are supported for the DMRS Configuration 1 if the 2nd parameter indicates 2 symbols, wherein up to 6 transmission layers are supported for the DMRS Configuration 2 if the 2nd parameter indicates 1 symbol, and wherein up to 12 transmission layers are supported for the DMRS Configuration 2 if the 2nd parameter indicates 2 symbols” in combination with other claim limitations as specified in claims 29, 33, 37 and 41.
Note that first closest prior art, Jin et al. (US 2019/0013916 A1), hereinafter “Jin” teaches a table from tables of configurations of DeModulation Reference Signal (DMRS) port number(s) based on a 1st parameter and a 2nd parameter (Fig. 7, Table 4, Table 5, paragraphs [0200], [0149], DMRS configuration parameters to UE).
Note that second closest prior art, Kim at al. (US 2020/0204335 A1) hereinafter “Kim” teaches: the number of bits for index values of each of the tables is determined based on a combination of the 1st parameter and the 2nd parameter (paragraph [0169], pattern type (configuration 1 or 2)) wherein the 1st parameter is one of DMRS Configuration 1 and DMRS Configuration 2 (paragraph [0159][0162], DMRS configuration 1 and DMRS configuration 2).
The prior arts cited above disclose the claimed limitations in part, however, none of these references, taken alone or in any reasonable combination, teach the independent claims as recited in conjunction with other limitations recited in the independent claims, and thus the claims are allowed over the prior art of record.
Conclusion
17. Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SITHU KO whose telephone number is 571-272-8647. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8:30am-5:00pmEST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edan Orgad can be reached on 571-272-7884. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/SITHU KO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2414