DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
This Office Action is responsive to applicant’s remarks and amendments filed on December 22, 2025, after the non-final rejection of the application.
Claims 1-20 are pending for further examination, of which claims 1-13 and 15-19 were amended.
In light of amendments, the double patenting rejection was withdrawn.
In light of amendments, the rejection to claims 2, 11, and 16 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) was withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, with respect to the rejection(s) of amended claims 1 and 7 have been considered but are moot in view of the new ground of rejection necessitated by the addition of limitations.
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 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.
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.
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 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 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claim at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1-6, 8-12, and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Levitsky et al. (US 20210359800 A1), hereafter referred as Levitsky, in view of Jassal et al. (US 20200366326 A1), hereafter referred as Jassal.
Regarding claim 1:
Levitsky discloses one or more processors comprising circuitry (reference signal {RS} transmission component or data transmission component, elements 1320, 1330 in Fig.13) to:
receive configuration information from a user equipment (UE) device
corresponding to one or more reference signals (receiving {preferred} demodulation reference signal {DMRS} configurations from wireless device [0050]} based, at least in part, on a determined capability of the UE device (based on identification of a preferred DMRS configuration by wireless device [0050]);
identify one or more UE device capabilities of providing a preference on a
reference signal configuration based, at least in part, on the received configuration information (select a DMRS configuration for subsequent transmissions to wireless device based on DMRS configuration indicated by wireless device [0050]); and
generate one or more reference signals based at least in part, on the received configuration information (generate signal [0251]and transmit DL DMRS, e.g., signal, to UE in accordance with DL DMRS configuration selected by UE [0116].
Levitsky does not further determine the capability of the UE device to use one or more neural networks; which is known in the art and commonly applied in communications field for data communications, as suggested in Jassal’s teachings as below.
Jassal, from the same field of endeavor, teaches determining the capability of the UE device to use one or more neural networks (UE performs tasks, e.g., channel estimation, through use of AI modules located at UE side [0052]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to generate and transmit RS/DMRS, in accordance with a preferred RS configuration information being signaled by UE; thus increasing spectral efficiency of communications link according to channel changes and reception conditions (Levitsky [0050]) and efficiently performing tasks in a faster manner (Jassal [0008]).
Regarding claim 2:
Levitsky in view of Jassal discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Levitsky further discloses the received configuration information includes one or more indications of UE device reference signal configuration preferences (preferred DMRS configurations are identified by a wireless device and signaled to a scheduling node [0050]).
Regarding claim 3:
Levitsky in view of Jassal discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Levitsky further discloses causing the one or more reference signals to be transmitted to a user equipment (UE) device that wirelessly transmitted the reference signal configuration information (DL DMRS are transmitted in accordance with selected DL DMRS configuration indicated by DMRS configuration indication [0116]).
Regarding claim 4:
Levitsky in view of Jassal discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Levitsky further discloses identifying one or more user equipment (UE) device capabilities of providing a preference on a reference signal configuration (indicating preferred reception parameters, e.g., capabilities, to a base station in report [0090] that includes an indication of selected DL DMRS configuration[0140] or UE signals a capability for selecting DL DMRS configurations [-145]), and the reference signal configuration information is received from a UE device that transmitted the reference signal configuration information based, at least in part, on the one or more UE device capabilities (and indicated DMRS configuration is received from UE, which generates a control message that directs the transmitting device to use indicated DMRS configuration for subsequent transmissions [0140]).
Regarding claim 5:
Levitsky in view of Jassal discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Levitsky further discloses generating a list of reference signal configurations (identifying a group of DL DMRS configurations [0116]), and wirelessly transmitting the reference signal configurations to one or more user equipment (UE) devices (and signaling selected DMRS configuration to UE [00830]), and wherein the received configuration information is received from a UE device of the one or more UE devices (and wherein DL DMRS configuration selected by UE [0116]), and is based, at least in part, on the list of reference signal configurations (and {selected} DL DMRS configuration is included in the group of DL DMRS configurations [0116]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to generate and transmit a list of RS configurations to UE(s); thus increasing spectral efficiency of a link by adaptively selecting DMRS configuration according to changes in channel and reception conditions [0050].
Regarding claim 6:
Levitsky in view of Jassal discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Levitsky further discloses generating reference signal preference configuration information to be sent to a user equipment (UE) device (identifying one of DL DMRS configurations included in group of DL DMRS configurations for UE [0116], and wherein the received configuration information is received from the UE device based, at least in part, on the reference signal preference configuration information (wherein DL DMRS configuration is selected by UE [0116].
Regarding claim 8:
Levitsky in view of Jassal discloses all limitations of claim 1
Levitsky further discloses the received configuration information is received at a base station from a user equipment (UE) device that transmitted the received configuration information using one or more of radio resource control (RRC) (base station and UE exchange RRC signaling [0145]), medium access control (MAC) control element (MAC CE) (MAC signaling [0155]), or uplink control information (UCI) (or transmitting, using uplink, channel state feedback {CSF} report, e.g., control information, to base station [0116]) .
Regarding claim 9:
Claim 9 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 1 above, except that claim 9 is in a system claim format (system, element 1105 in Fig.11 of Levitsky), wherein the system has one or more processors (processor, communications manager, elements 1140 and 1110 in Fig.11 of Levitsky) to perform claimed functionalities.
Regarding claims 10-12:
Claims 10-11 and 12 are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 5-6 and 8 above, except that claims 10-11 and 12 are in a system claim format.
Regarding claim 14:
Levitsky in view of Jassal discloses all limitations of claim 9.
Levitsky further discloses the processor causes one or more reference signals to be transmitted from a wireless radio network base station to UE device (reference signal transmission component, e.g., processor, causes DL DMRS to be transmitted [element 1320 in Fig.13] and [0116]).
Regarding claim 15-19:
Claims 15-19 are rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claims 1-2 and 4-6 above, except that claims 15-19 are in a method claim format.
Regarding claim 20:
Claim 20 is rejected for substantially same reason as applied to claim 15 above, except that claim 20 is in a non-transitory computer-readable medium format [0009 in Levitsky].
Claims 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over by Levitsky in view of Jassal, as applied to claims 1 and 9 above, and further in view of Koutsimanis et al. (US 20160020877 A1), hereafter referred as Koutsimanis.
Regarding claim 7:
Levitsky in view of Jassal discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Levitsky further discloses identifying a subset of a list of reference signal configurations as an active configuration (determining one of DL DMRS configurations included in group of DL DMRS configurations to transmit second DL DMRS [0116]), and cause an indication of the active configuration to be transmitted to UE device (and signalling selected DMRS configuration to a UE 115 using RRC signaling [0083]), wherein the received configuration information is selected by the UE from the active set (wherein DL DMRS configuration selected by UE is included in DL DMRS configuration group [0116]).
Levitsky in view of Jassal does not explicitly teach determining the active set of RS configuration sets.
Koutsimanis from the same field of endeavor, teaches determining the active set of RS configuration sets (determining some RS configurations are available for first and second communications devices out of RS book [0052] or transmitting index identifying RS configurations that has been determined/ selected to be used for communications between two devices [0051]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to identify an active set of RS configurations for the user device to select a preferred RS configuration; thus improving channel estimation quality by adopting a preferred RS configuration [0040].
Regarding claim 13:
Levitsky in view of Jassal discloses all limitations of claim 9.
Levitsky in view of Jassal does not explicitly teach causing a request to a user equipment {UE}device to indicate a preference on reference signal configuration, and wherein the reference signal configuration information is received at a wireless radio network base station based, at least in part, on the request to the UE.
Koutsimanis from the same field of endeavor, teaches a request to a user equipment {UE} device to indicate a preference on reference signal configuration (request sent to first communication device, wherein request indicates that second communication devices wishes that one of the RS configurations in predefined RS configurations should be for communication between the first and the second communication device [0082]), and wherein the reference signal configuration information is received at a wireless radio network base station based, at least in part, on the request to the UE (and wherein RS configuration is selected and is transmitted to base station, wherein selected RS configuration is one out of determined predefined RS configurations [0079 and 0084]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to indicate a preference on a RS configuration, in response to the request; thus optimizing performance by taking into account the radio environment of each device, when RS configuration/ pattern is configured, while minimizing RS overhead [0084, 0078].
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