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 .
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/29/2025 has been entered.
Claim status
Claims 1 and 11 are amended.
Claims 2-10 and 12-20 were previously canceled.
Claims 1 and 11 are pending for examination.
Response to arguments
Re: 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1 and 11 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant’s argument: (Pg. 5 of applicant’s comment) “Office Action describe only operations involving multiple SRS resources within one SRS resource set, not operations involving two different SRS resource sets. Accordingly, Harrison does not disclose or suggest the features in claim 1 related to the two SRS resource sets.
Applicant’s argument: (Pg. 6 of applicant’s comment) “Harrison, however, fails to disclose that the network indicates, via a specific field in the DCI, whether to apply both or only one of the SRS resource sets during PUSCH transmission. Harrison even does not disclose a scenario in which two SRS resource sets are applied.
Applicant’s argument: (Pg. 7 of applicant’s comment) “Harrison describes, at most, the selection of zero, one, or more SRS resources by a size-N bitmap. Harrison, however, still fails to disclose "whether to apply both or only one of the first SRS resource set and the second SRS resource set during Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmission", as recited in unamended claim 1.”
Applicant’s argument: (Pg. 8 of applicant’s comment) “Harrison merely describes the ordering of SRS resources within a single SRS resource set and does not disclose the ordering of two SRS resource sets.
Applicant’s argument: (Pg. 9 of applicant’s comment) “the "trigger state" in paragraph [0025] of Harrison merely selects an associated SRS resource set. Since Harrison does not disclose the disclose a scenario in which two SRS resource sets are applied, as discussed previously, the "trigger state" in paragraph [0025] of Harrison does not indicate "whether to apply both or only one" of the first SRS resource set and the second SRS resource set during the PUSCH transmission.”
Above arguments by the applicant may be summarized as arguments:
Harrison is not teaching whether only one or both resource sets are used; and
Harrison is teaching regarding resources within a resource set by using the bitmap and not the resource sets themselves and thus fails to disclose the claim of choosing the resource sets.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. In [0085], Harrison elaborates on the use of trigger states where it discloses that g resource groups are selected from Ng total number of resource groups. In [0089] it also discloses selection of L resource groups and also particular resource selected from resource groups.
Applicant’s argument: (Pg. 10 of applicant’s comment) the "SRI signaling" in paragraph [0082] of Harrison does not relate to SRS resource sets, let alone the order of applying two SRS resource sets. Therefore, the "SRI signaling" of Harrison does not indicate "the order" in which the first SRS resource set and the second SRS resource set are applied.
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Harrison in[0085] Ns(g) states are used to select any of g SRS resource groups in a single, fixed, order. [0089] also provides another encoding of SRI.
35 U.S.C. §103 rejection is not withdrawn.
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.
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison et al. (US 2019/0103949 A1), hereinafter “Harrison”.
Regarding claim 1, Harrison teaches, a method performed by a user equipment (UE) for uplink (UL) transmission ([Abstract] “A method of identifying reference signal resources to be used in a transmission by a wireless device”), the method comprising:
receiving, from a base station (BS), a first Radio Resource Control (RRC) configuration that indicates a first Sounding Reference Signal (SRS) resource set and a second SRS resource set different from the first SRS resource set ([0025] “The SRS-Config also contains a list of SRS resource sets, which contains a list of SRS resources; [0077] “the TRP will configure the UE (using RRC signaling) with different SRS resource sets”);
receiving, from the BS, Downlink Control Information (DCI) comprising a specific field ([0025] “The SRS-Config also contains a list of SRS resource sets, which contains a list of SRS resources and an associated DCI trigger state. Thus, when a certain DCI state is triggered, it indicates that the SRS resources in the associated set shall be transmitted by the UE.”; trigger state of the disclosure may be equated with specific field of the claim, which is further discussed next), a first SRS Resource Indicator (SRI) field, and a second SRI field (Fig.5 discloses SRI indicator bit fields);
determining whether to apply both or only one of the first SRS resource set and the second SRS resource set during Physical Uplink Shared Channel (PUSCH) transmission based on the specific field indicating whether to apply both or only one (implied by disclosure in [0085] (reproduced below),
PNG
media_image1.png
567
659
media_image1.png
Greyscale
and [0078] “SRS groups may be selected from the total set of SRS groups configured to a UE and SRS resources selected from the selected SRS groups. SRI states will dictates which resource sets are selected, which includes the scenarios that either one or both of the resource groups are selected when considered only two resource sets.
Harrison also teaches, determining an order in which the first SRS resource set and the second SRS resource set are applied based on the specific field indicating the order in a case that both of the first SRS resource set and the second SRS resource set are applied during the PUSCH transmission (ordering is discussed above with respect to disclosure in [0085] ), wherein:
a number of first SRS resources in the first SRS resource set is identical to a number of second SRS resources in the second SRS resource set ([0077] “one SRS resource set may consist of eight SRS resources, where SRS resources 1-4 belong to a first SRS resource group and SRS resource 5-8 belong to a second SRS resource group.”), the first SRI field indicates a first value associated with the first SRS resources, and the second SRI field indicates a second value associated with the second SRS resources ([0032] “In certain embodiments, determining the at least first and second SRS resources includes identifying the first and second SRS resources from among the plurality of SRS resources by a first and second index, respectively. Moreover, the first and second indexes further indicate an order in which the first and second SRS resources are to be mapped to the first and second MIMO layers. ”).
Disclosures by Harrison, as cited above, may have come from different embodiments, but all of them are related to Efficient SRS Resource Indication Methods (title) and identifying reference signal resources to be used in a transmission by a wireless device ([abstract]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to combine the disclosures by Harrison and come up with the claimed invention motivated by “efficient indication of SRS resources in a next generation mobile wireless communication system”, as cited by Harrison in [0002].
Claim 11 is a change in category with respect to claim 1. Claim elements are discussed in claim 1. Existence of a processor and non-transitory computer-readable medium are implied.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INTEKHAAB AALAM SIDDIQUEE whose telephone number is (571)272-0895. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
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, Yemane Mesfin can be reached at 571-272-3927. 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.
/INTEKHAAB A SIDDIQUEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2462