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 .
Response to Amendment
This communication is in response to the amendment filed 11/13/2025. The amendment has been entered and considered.
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, 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park et al. “Park” US2021/0226833 in view of Manolakos et al. “Manolakos” US2020/0389284 further in view of Bar-Or Tillinger et al. “Bar” US 2022/0377782.
Regarding claim 1, Park teaches a method of data transmission, comprising the steps of:
detecting, by a base station, at least one of a plurality of aggregated time slots configured as a downlink (DL) time slot wherein the detecting comprises identifying a first available DL slot (Figure 6 and paragraphs 92 and 94 teaches a plurality of aggregated slots that are used for communications between a base station and UE. These are the available DL slots identified for transmission (i.e. detected))
determining whether or not to bundle plurality of demodulation reference signals (DMRSs) (Paragraphs 102-103 teaches the bundling of DMRS if supported);
transmitting, to a user equipment (UE), a downlink control message (DCI) in the DL time slot that indicates whether the DMRS are to be bundled (DCI is provided in the first of the two aggregated slots for transmission to a UE; Paragraph 94. One a base station has made a decision with respect to DRMS bundling, the base station can inform the UE via DCI of the bundling scheme; Paragraph 115);
transmitting, by the UE, the plurality of bundled DMRSs and performing joint channel estimation based on the bundled DMRSs (the UE sends the bundled DMRS and the receiving device (i.e. base station) can perform channel estimation based on the DRMS across multiple slots; Paragraphs 102-103).
Park does not expressly disclose waiting, by the UE, for a time duration corresponding to a length of at least one symbol as a first indication gap before transmitting bundled DMRS according to DCI. Manolakos, however, teaches a base station configuring a UE with an offset before a UE can begin a bundling sequence. This offset is the time the UE waits before applying the start of the budling which can be equivalent to a number of slots or symbols. This offset enables the base station to allow itself time to use as processing before beginning the bundled communications; Paragraph 157. Paragraphs 146 and 158 further teaches the information for waiting is tied to DCI information received from the base station. Thus, one can see this offset would be a time the base station and UE would be waiting before, beginning transmission of bundled DMRS, which corresponds to a symbol.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Park to include a base station waiting for a time duration which corresponds to a symbol as taught by Manolakos.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the base station may allow itself a duration of time to use as processing time before starting the bundle communications as taught by Manolakos; Paragraph 157.
The prior art does not expressly disclose measuring a wireless channel between a BS and UE and determining, by the base station, to bundle or not based on the measurements; however, Bar teaches a base station measuring channel conditions which dictates what information is transmit in a DCI to the UE; Paragraph 78. The DCI messages can include bundling information; Paragraphs 57 and 92. Thus, because the base station sends DCI, which include bundling information, and the DCI is determined based on measured channel conditions, the base station is viewed as determining whether or not to bundle based on measured channel between the base station and UE).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include measuring a channel to determine to bundle as taught by Bar.
One would be motivated to make the modification such the size of the DCI can be reduced by the base station as taught by Bar; Paragraph 78.
Regarding claim 7, Park teaches receiving the DMRS in one or more aggregated time slots (the UE sends the bundled DMRS which are applied to multiple (i.e. aggregated) slots; Paragraphs 102-103).
Regarding claim 8, Park teaches the channel estimation is performed using the DMRS in the one or more aggregated time slots (the UE sends the bundled DMRS (with aggregated slots) and the receiving device (i.e. base station) can perform channel estimation based on the DRMS across multiple slots; Paragraphs 102-103).
Claim(s) 3, 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Manolakos in view of Bar and further in view of Hasegawa et al. “Hasegawa” US 2023/0291523.
Regarding claim 3, Park teaches the plurality of bundled DMRS are in a PUSCH (DRMS is carried in the PUSCH; Paragraphs 73 and 113). The prior art does not teach PUSCH repetitions; however, Hasegawa teaches bundled DMRS transmissions which utilize type A and type B; Paragraph 157.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include PUSCH type A or B repetitions as taught by Hasegawa.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that a UE can determine whether or not to terminate a DMRS bundling process and send an indication to the network as taught by Hasegawa; Paragraph 157.
Regarding claim 10, the prior art does not teach PUSCH repetition type A; however, Hasegawa teaches bundled DMRS transmissions which utilize type A and type B; Paragraph 157.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include PUSCH type A or B repetitions as taught by Hasegawa.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that a UE can determine whether or not to terminate a DMRS bundling process and send an indication to the network as taught by Hasegawa; Paragraph 157.
Regarding claim 11, the prior art does not teach PUSCH repetition type B; however, Hasegawa teaches bundled DMRS transmissions which utilize type A and type B; Paragraph 157.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include PUSCH type A or B repetitions as taught by Hasegawa.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that a UE can determine whether or not to terminate a DMRS bundling process and send an indication to the network as taught by Hasegawa; Paragraph 157.
Regarding claim 12, the prior art does not teach PUSCH repetition type A; however, Hasegawa teaches bundled DMRS transmissions which utilize type A and type B; Paragraph 157.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include PUSCH type A or B repetitions as taught by Hasegawa.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that a UE can determine whether or not to terminate a DMRS bundling process and send an indication to the network as taught by Hasegawa; Paragraph 157.
Regarding claim 13, the prior art does not teach PUSCH repetition type B; however, Hasegawa teaches bundled DMRS transmissions which utilize type A and type B; Paragraph 157.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include PUSCH type A or B repetitions as taught by Hasegawa.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that a UE can determine whether or not to terminate a DMRS bundling process and send an indication to the network as taught by Hasegawa; Paragraph 157.
Claim(s) 14, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Manolakos in view of Hasegawa.
Regarding claim 14, Park teaches a base station comprising:
A processor configured to detect at least one of a plurality of aggregated time slots configured as a downlink (DL) time slot (Figure 6 and paragraphs 92 and 94 teaches a plurality of aggregated slots that are used for communications between a base station and UE); and
A transceiver in communication with the processor and configured to:
receive a first and second set of bundled DMRS in a first/second PUSCH (the UE and base station send and receive the bundled DMRS to perform channel estimation based on the DRMS across multiple slots; Paragraphs 102-103. As a plurality of bundled DMRS are sent, this is viewed as first and second set. Further, DRMS is carried in the PUSCH; Paragraphs 73 and 113).
Park does not expressly disclose a time duration corresponding to a length time between bundled sets equal to a symbol. Manolakos, however, teaches a base station configuring a UE with an offset before a UE can begin a bundling sequence. This offset is the time the UE waits before applying the start of the budling which can be equivalent to a number of slots or symbols. This offset enables the base station to allow itself time to use as processing before beginning the bundled communications; Paragraph 157.Thus, one can see this offset would be a time the base station would be waiting which corresponds to a symbol.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Park to include a base station waiting for a time duration which corresponds to a symbol as taught by Manolakos.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the base station may allow itself a duration of time to use as processing time before starting the bundle communications as taught by Manolakos; Paragraph 157.
Park teaches the plurality of bundled DMRS are in a PUSCH (DRMS is carried in the PUSCH; Paragraphs 73 and 113). The prior art does not teach PUSCH repetitions; however, Hasegawa teaches bundled DMRS transmissions which utilize type A and type B; Paragraph 157.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include PUSCH type A or B repetitions as taught by Hasegawa.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that a UE can determine whether or not to terminate a DMRS bundling process and send an indication to the network as taught by Hasegawa; Paragraph 157.
Regarding claim 15, Park teaches a UE comprising:
A processor configured to detect at least one of a plurality of aggregated time slots configured as a uplink (UL) time slot (Figure 6 and paragraphs 92 and 94 teaches a plurality of aggregated slots that are used for communications between a base station and UE); and
A transceiver in communication with the processor configured to:
Transmit a first and second set of bundled DMRS in a first/second PUSCH (the UE and base station send and receive the bundled DMRS to perform channel estimation based on the DRMS across multiple slots; Paragraphs 102-103. As a plurality of bundled DMRS are sent form the UE to the base station, this is viewed as first and second set. Further, DRMS is carried in the PUSCH; Paragraphs 73 and 113).
Performing join channel estimation based on the bundled DMRSs (the device can perform joint channel estimation based on the DRMS across multiple slots; Paragraphs 102-103).
Park does not expressly disclose waiting for a time duration corresponding to a length of at least one symbol as a first indication gap. Manolakos, however, teaches a base station configuring a UE with an offset before a UE can begin a bundling sequence. This offset is the time the UE waits before applying the start of the budling which can be equivalent to a number of slots or symbols. This offset enables the base station to allow itself time to use as processing before beginning the bundled communications; Paragraph 157.Thus, one can see this offset would be a time the base station would be waiting which corresponds to a symbol.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of Park to include a base station waiting for a time duration which corresponds to a symbol as taught by Manolakos.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that the base station may allow itself a duration of time to use as processing time before starting the bundle communications as taught by Manolakos; Paragraph 157.
Park teaches the plurality of bundled DMRS are in a PUSCH (DRMS is carried in the PUSCH; Paragraphs 73 and 113). The prior art does not teach PUSCH repetitions; however, Hasegawa teaches bundled DMRS transmissions which utilize type A and type B; Paragraph 157.
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing to modify the teachings of the prior art to include PUSCH type A or B repetitions as taught by Hasegawa.
One would be motivated to make the modification such that a UE can determine whether or not to terminate a DMRS bundling process and send an indication to the network as taught by Hasegawa; Paragraph 157.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 5 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues the prior art does not teach or suggest the amended limitations nor that Bar properly teaches a base station measuring channel conditions to determine whether to bundle DMRS.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. As shown in the updated rejection, it is Park that is relied upon to show the base station sending a DCI which indicates to the UE the DMRS bundling scheme; Paragraph 115. Bar is relied upon to show a connection between a base station performing a measurement function and DMRS bundling. Bar teaches a base station measuring channel conditions which dictates what information is transmit in a DCI to the UE; Paragraph 78. The DCI messages can include bundling information; Paragraphs 57 and 92. One can see Bar relates measuring of the channel to DMRS bundling and thus when combined with Park which teaches DMRS bundling determinations are included in the DCI, one can see the claims stand properly rejected.
Regarding claim 14, Applicant argues the prior art does not teach bundled DMRs received on two frequency bands or a base station detecting DL slots and enforcing a symbol-length timing between receptions.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. Hasegawa was not used for the detection of slots, thus the argument is moot. Hasegawa was introduced for the teachings of bundled DMRS transmissions which utilize type A and type B (i.e. first and second PUSCH repetition); Paragraph 157. The Examiner relied on Hasegawa for the teachings of PUSCH can have multiple repetitions for transmitting bundled DMRS. With respect to first/second frequency bands, the information (from all the references) is transmit with respect to a frequency band. The claim is not written in a way that the first and second frequency bands are not the same band, or that they are different frequencies.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant argues the prior art does not teach a BS receives the bundled DMRS and performs joint channel estimation across the aggregated time slots. Applicant further argues Hasegawa does not teach bundling determinations, DCI signaling of bundling status or joint channel estimation.
The Examiner respectfully disagrees. At the outset, the Examiner notes that it is a UE, not a base station, doing the joint channel estimation in claim 15. Further, the claim only requires one slot, thus the joint channel estimation does not need to be performed across the aggregated time slots as argued. Claim 15 does not require any DCI signaling of a bundling status either. All arguments related to these limitations are thus moot.
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRANDON M RENNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3621. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 7am-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, Derrick Ferris can be reached at (571)-272-3123. 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.
/BRANDON M RENNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2411
Prosecution Insights