DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on December 23, 2025, after the non-final rejection of the application.
Claims 1 and 7 were amended. Claims 1-4 and 7 are pending for further examination.
In light of amendments, the rejection to claims 1-5 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) was withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejections of amended claims 1 and 7 have been considered but are not persuasive.
Main Argument
Applicant respectfully asserts that:
(i) Wilson is silent with respect to implicitly switching reference signals to decode the data, as required by the above-referenced limitations of amended claim 1. The same is true for amended claim 7, which recites substantially similar limitations.
(ii) Wilson and Borst, whether considered separately or in combination, cannot support an obviousness rejection.
Reply
Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Applicant’s amendments of claims 1 and 7 have been considered and are now rejected by applying the same previous art used in the first Office Action. Details about mapping these limitations using Wilson to map these limitations under the 103 rejection section for claim 1 (NR UE is configured by NR BS to receive and use LTE second reference signal {DMRS} for decoding NR DL data [0075-0076, 0042], in case when shared radio spectrum is applied between LTE and NR [0036], e.g., e.g., implicitly switching RS -- so as to improve resource utilization efficiency).
Applicant is reminded that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See in re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR international Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, 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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) are summarized as follows:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claims 1-4, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable by John Wilson et al. (US 20180316472 A1) (cited by applicant in record), hereinafter referred to as Wilson.
Regarding claim 1:
Wilson discloses a terminal comprising:
a receiver (transceiver, element 410 in Fig.4) configured to receive a reference signal {RS} of a first Radio Access Technology {RAT} (configured to receive reference signals, e.g., demodulation reference signal {DMRS}, cell specific reference signals {CRS}, and channel state information-reference signal {CSI-RS} of Long-Term Evolution {LTE}, e.g., first RAT [0072-0073]); and
a processor (processor, element 402 in Fig.4) configured to decode data of a second RAT using a plurality of reference signals, the plurality of reference signals comprising the reference signal of the first RAT (configured to decode NR data based on LTE RSs sent from LTE BS [0075-0076]), and a reference signal of the second RAT (and reference signals in NR [0026, lines 13-18]),
wherein the reference signal of the first RAT and the reference signal of the second RAT are time division multiplexed and frequency division multiplexed with each other (NR signals and LTE reference signals are transmitted on non-overlapping frequency tones [0075, lines 1-7], and during same time period, e.g., time division multiplexed [0076],[0067] and Fig. 7),
wherein the receiver receives information for switching reference signals in the plurality of reference signals used for decoding the data of the second RAT (NR UE is configured by NR BS to use LTE second reference signal {DMRS}, and upon receiving LTE second reference signal, NR UE decodes DL data from DL data signal based on second reference signal, e.g., switching RS, [0075-0076]), and wherein the processor implicitly switches reference signals used for decoding the data of the second RAT (and UE is configured to receive LTE reference signals to perform decoding NR decoding data [0042]).
Also, Wilson teaches that NR BS communicates with UE over a radio link in NR network based on an NR RAN protocol [0040] and UE receives both LTE and NR signals, [elements 220, 224, 222, 209m,209m+1 in Fig.2]. In addition, Wilson teaches UEs and BSs operate in a shared radio frequency spectrum [0036], and NR BS coordinates with LTE BS to reuse LTE RS resources for operations in the NR network so as to improve resource utilization efficiency [0042].
Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the terminal implicitly switches RS for decoding data of second RAT -- when sharing spectrum between LTE and NR is applied -- according to different applications to improve resource utilization efficiency; thus enhancing network functionalities [0037] by employing appropriate RS(s) of a RAT different from the RAT in which data are transmitted.
Regarding claim 2:
Wilson discloses all the features of claim 1 – and
Wilson further discloses, with respect to the second RAT, transmission is performed via a same carrier as the first RAT (For example, both the NR network and the LTE network in the nested network system may operate over the frequency spectrum 702…. both NR network and LTE network have a {sub}carrier of 15 Khz, [0065] in Wilson).
Therefore, it would be obvious by one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the same carrier to perform first and second RAT transmission; thus being able to support LTE devices and 5G NR devices, when having separate radio spectrum reserved specifically for use with 5G NR devices is not affordable.
Regarding claim 3:
Wilson discloses all the features of claim 1 – and
Wilson further discloses wherein the reception unit receives information for receiving the reference signal in the second RAT, and receives the reference signal based on the information (receiving configuration for receiving LTE reference signals at NR UE, [0060-0061] in Wilson]).
Regarding claim 4:
Wilson discloses all the features of claim 3 – and
Wilson further discloses wherein the information for receiving the reference signal is at least one of: sequence information related to the reference signal; timing information related to the reference signal; and frequency information related to the reference signal (receiving LTE reference signals according to configuration, e.g., information, which includes information related to resources [0061 in Wilson ], symbol locations, e.g., timing information [0060 in Wilson], and frequency tone location [0060 in Wilson]).
Regarding claim 7:
Claim 7 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1 above, except that claim 7 is in a method claim format.
Conclusion
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 CAMQUYEN THAI whose telephone number is (571)270-7245. The examiner can normally be reached on 9:00am-5:00pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and videoconferencing 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, Ayman A. Abaza can be reached on 571-270-0422. 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
/C.Q.T./
/AYMAN A ABAZA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2465
Prosecution Insights