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 .
This is in response to an amendment/response filed on 12/23/2025.
Claims 11-13, 21, 23, and 26-31 have been amended.
No claims have been cancelled. Claims 1-10 were cancelled previously.
No new claims have been added.
Claims 11-40 remain pending in the application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 12/23/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claims 1, 30, and 31, Applicant argues that it is improper to use Wang’s “updated time offset configuration” to teach both the “first information related to a timing difference” and the “reception configuration based on the first information.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of the prior art. The Examiner would like to note that the Examiner’s interpretation is not limited to relying on Wang’s “updated time offset configuration” to teach both the “first information related to a timing difference” and the “reception configuration based on the first information.” Wang teaches that the terminal device may obtain a time of arrival (TOA) difference between TRP 120-1 and TRP 120-2 and may transmit information about updated time offset configuration (i.e., first information related to a timing difference between the first node and a second node) to the network device (Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0062]-[0066]). The Examiner would like to note that paragraph [0059] also states “the network device may update time offset configuration based on the information reported from the terminal device.” The terminal device may then receive symbols from a second node (e.g., TRP 120-2), and such received symbols may be interpreted as being based at least on the updated time offset configuration (Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0062]-[0066]). Transmission from the second node/reception by the terminal device may thus be performed based on the updated time offset configuration, and such reception based on the updated time offset configuration may be interpreted as reception in accordance with a reception configuration based on the first information. Regarding claims 1, 30, and 31, Applicant argues that Wang does not teach receiving, from the second node, a second symbol in accordance with a reception configuration including a gap period at least one of before or after the second symbol, wherein a quantity of gap symbols included in the gap period is based on the first information. Applicant asserts that paragraph [0052] of Wang describes that the “value of the time offset may be related to the time alignment error (TAE). For example, the TAE may refer to a largest timing difference between any two signals belonging to different TRPs. In some embodiments, the TAE can be obtained by over the air (OTA) measurement. Alternatively, the TAE may be a manufacturing parameter.” The Examiner respectfully disagrees with Applicant’s interpretation of the prior art. The Examiner also finds Applicant’s quotation of paragraph [0052] of Wang confusing because Applicant’s arguments appear to simply quote paragraph [0052] without any reasoning with regard to why the cited portions of Wang (e.g., paragraphs [0059] and [0062]-[0066]) do not teach the claimed invention. Paragraph [0052] of Wang does not appear to prevent paragraphs [0059] and [0062]-[0066] of Wang from teaching the claimed invention. With regard to the teachings of the prior art, Wang teaches that the network device may update time offset configuration based on the information reported from the terminal device (Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0062]-[0066]). The terminal device may receive symbols from a second node (e.g., TRP 120-2), and such received symbols may be interpreted as being based at least on the updated time offset configuration (i.e., a reception configuration) (Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0062]-[0066]). The terminal device may thus be interpreted as receiving, from the second node, a second symbol in accordance with a reception configuration. As can be seen in at least Fig. 3, a TOA difference (e.g., TOA difference 330) may exist between the first and the second symbol, and such a TOA difference may be interpreted as a gap period at least one of before or after the second symbol (Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0062]-[0066]). The Examiner would also like to note that at least paragraph [0073] refers to a TOA difference as a “gap” (Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0073]). The reception configuration may thus be interpreted as including a gap period at least one of before or after the second symbol. The updated time offset configuration (i.e., first information related to a timing difference between the first node and a second node) may indicate the TOA difference (i.e., a quantity of gap symbols included in the gap period) (Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0062]-[0066]). A quantity of gap symbols included in the gap period may thus be interpreted as being based on the first information. Wang may thus be interpreted as teaching receiving, from the second node, a second symbol in accordance with a reception configuration including a gap period at least one of before or after the second symbol, wherein a quantity of gap symbols included in the gap period is based on the first information.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a processing system” in claim 11. Regarding claim 11, the Examiner would like to note that the only discussion of a “processing system” in Applicant’s specification occurs in paragraph [0035], which states “a node may also be referred to as a network entity, a telecommunications node, a processing system, an apparatus, or the like.” Such disclosure appears to further support interpreting the claimed “processing system” under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) rather than interpreting the claimed “processing system” as known hardware such as a processor.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. Regarding claim 11, as is also discussed in the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation above, the claim limitation “a processing system” is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f). Claim 11 is thus an apparatus claim that recites a “single means” as the only structure in the claim. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim. Regarding claims 12-29, the claims are rejected because they depend from rejected claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 11-14, 16-17, 20-34, 36-37, and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Wang et al. (US 2024/0430051, Wang hereinafter). Regarding claims 1, 30, and 31, Wang teaches a method, a non-transitory computer-readable storage medium (Memory; Wang; Figs. 1-11; [0166]-[0169]), and an apparatus for wireless communication (Terminal device; Wang; Figs. 1-11; [0166]), comprising: a processing system (The terminal may be comprised of a processor; Wang; Figs. 1-11; [0166]) configured to: receive, from a first node, a first symbol (At least a first symbol may be received from a first node (e.g., a TRP such as TRP 120-1). The terminal device may thus be interpreted as receiving, from a first node, a first symbol; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0063]-[0066]); transmit, to the first node, first information related to a timing difference between the first node and a second node (The terminal device may obtain a time of arrival (TOA) difference between TRP 120-1 and TRP 120-2 and may transmit information about updated time offset configuration (i.e., first information related to a timing difference between the first node and a second node) to the network device. The terminal device may thus be interpreted as transmitting, to the first node, first information related to a timing difference between the first node and a second node; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0063]-[0066]); and receive, from the second node, a second symbol in accordance with a reception configuration (The network device may update time offset configuration based on the information reported from the terminal device. The terminal device may receive symbols from a second node (e.g., TRP 120-2), and such received symbols may be interpreted as being based at least on the updated time offset configuration (i.e., a reception configuration). The terminal device may thus be interpreted as receiving, from the second node, a second symbol in accordance with a reception configuration; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0062]-[0066]) including a gap period at least one of before or after the second symbol (As can be seen in at least Fig. 3, a TOA difference (e.g., TOA difference 330) may exist between the first and the second symbol, and such a TOA difference may be interpreted as a gap period at least one of before or after the second symbol. The Examiner would also like to note that at least paragraph [0073] refers to a TOA difference as a “gap”; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0062]-[0066], [0073]), wherein a quantity of gap symbols included in the gap period is based on the first information (The updated time offset configuration (i.e., first information related to a timing difference between the first node and a second node) may indicate the TOA difference (i.e., a quantity of gap symbols included in the gap period). A quantity of gap symbols included in the gap period may thus be interpreted as being based on the first information; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0062]-[0066]). Regarding claims 12 and 32, Wang teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 31 respectively. Wang further teaches the processing system is configured to: receive, from the first node, a first reference signal (The terminal device is described as potentially receiving reference signals from multiple TRPs, such as TRP 120-1. For example, channel state information reference signals (CSI-RS) are described as potentially being used for beam management (BM), channel acquisition and tracking. The terminal device may thus be interpreted as receiving, from the first node, a first reference signal; Wang; Figs. 2-10; Tables 1-2; [0054]-[0055], [0059], [0062]-[0066]); receive, from the second node, a second reference signal (The terminal device is described as potentially receiving reference signals from multiple TRPs, such as TRP 120-2. For example, channel state information reference signals (CSI-RS) are described as potentially being used for beam management (BM), channel acquisition and tracking. The terminal device may thus be interpreted as receiving, from the second node, a second reference signal; Wang; Figs. 2-10; Tables 1-2; [0054]-[0055], [0059], [0062]-[0066]); and determine the timing difference between the first node and the second node based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal (Reference signals from TRP 120-1 and TRP 120-2 are described as being received based on the timing offset (i.e., the timing difference) between the nodes. The timing difference may thus be interpreted as being determined based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal. Additionally, channel state information reference signals (CSI-RS) are described as potentially being used for beam management (BM), channel acquisition and tracking. Transmission (and thus the timing difference) from TRPs such as TRP 120-1 and TRP 120-2 may thus be interpreted as being based on such reference signals and thus the timing difference between such nodes may also be interpreted as being based on reference signals from both nodes (i.e., on the first reference signal and the second reference signal). Furthermore, a first configuration is also described as being received by the terminal that may also indicate the time offset between signals such as reference signals received from a first TRP and a second TRP (e.g., TRP 120-1 and TRP 120-2). Because such an offset is described as being used for reception of reference signals from both nodes, such an offset may also be interpreted as being based on the first reference signal and the second reference signal; Wang; Figs. 2-10; Tables 1-2; [0039], [0059], [0062]-[0066]). Regarding claims 13 and 33, Wang teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 31 respectively. Wang further teaches the processing system is configured to receive the reception configuration from the first node (The terminal device is described as potentially receiving at least a first configuration (i.e., the reception configuration) from a network device, which may be interpreted as including a TRP such as TRP 120-1. The terminal device may also receive the TOA difference of the TRP 120-2 from the TRP 120-1, and such a TOA difference may also be interpreted as the reception configuration. The terminal device may thus be interpreted as receiving the reception configuration from the first node; Wang; Figs. 2-10; Tables 1-2; [0039], [0049], [0059], [0062]-[0066]). Regarding claims 14 and 34, Wang teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 31 respectively. Wang further teaches the first information includes information indicative of the timing difference relative to a threshold (The terminal device may obtain a time of arrival (TOA) difference between TRP 120-1 and TRP 120-2 and may transmit information about updated time offset configuration (i.e., first information related to a timing difference between the first node and a second node) to the network device. Such a time offset is also described as being compared to a threshold for the purpose of receiving transmissions from TRP 120-1 and TRP 120-2, and thus such time offset information may also be interpreted as being indicative of the timing difference relative to a threshold. Additionally, the terminal device is also described as potentially indicating to TRPs that at least a second symbol adjacent to the first symbol is unavailable for downlink transmission based on the timing difference exceeding a threshold. Such an indication that at least such a second symbol is unavailable may thus also be interpreted as information indicative of the timing difference relative to a threshold; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0063]-[0066], [0077]). Regarding claims 16 and 36, Wang teaches the limitations of claims 14 and 34 respectively. Wang further teaches the information indicative of the timing difference relative to the threshold indicates whether the timing difference is at least one of: less than, greater than, or equal to the threshold (Information about updated time offset designed to be compared to a threshold may be interpreted as being indicative as to whether or not such a value is at least one of: less than, greater than, or equal to the threshold. Additionally, the terminal device is also described as potentially indicating to TRPs that at least a second symbol adjacent to the first symbol is unavailable for downlink transmission based on the timing difference exceeding a threshold. Such an indication that at least such a second symbol is unavailable may thus also be interpreted as indicating that the timing offset (i.e., timing difference) is at least greater than the threshold; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0063]-[0066], [0077]). Regarding claims 17 and 37, Wang teaches the limitations of claims 14 and 34 respectively. Wang further teaches the threshold is a time period corresponding to a cyclic prefix, and wherein the cyclic prefix corresponds to the first symbol, the second symbol, a first messaging scheme associated with the first node, or a second messaging scheme associated with the second node (As can be seen in at least Fig. 3 and its corresponding description, transmissions from TRPs such as TRP 120-1 and TRP 120-2 may be comprised of cyclic prefixes (CPs) at the beginning of transmissions. Because the threshold is used to receive such transmissions comprising a CP, the threshold may be interpreted as being a time period corresponding to a cyclic prefix. Such a cyclic prefix (potentially received in the first and/or second symbol) may also be interpreted as corresponding to the first and/or second symbol. Additionally, use of a cyclic prefix by the first node and the second node may also be interpreted as corresponding to a first messaging scheme associated with the first node and/or a second messaging scheme associated with the second node. Furthermore, at least paragraph [0077] discusses the threshold potentially being a cyclic prefix length, which may also be interpreted as a time period corresponding to a cyclic prefix; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0063]-[0066], [0077]). Regarding claims 20 and 40, Wang teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 31 respectively. Wang further teaches the first node is associated with a first PCI and the second node is associated with a second PCI different from the first PCI (One TRP is described as potentially corresponding to one physical cell ID (i.e., PCI). The first node may thus be interpreted as being associated with a first PCI and the second node may thus be interpreted as being associated with a second PCI different from the first PCI; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0034], [0059], [0063]-[0066], [0077]). Regarding claim 21, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 11. Wang further teaches wherein the gap period is based on a subcarrier spacing (SCS) of a component carrier (CC) of the first symbol or the second symbol (The threshold used to determine whether an offset (i.e., a gap period) is required before the second symbol is described as potentially being based on the required subcarrier spacing (SCS). The gap period may thus be interpreted as being based on a subcarrier spacing (SCS) of a component carrier (CC) of the first symbol or the second symbol; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0038], [0059], [0063]-[0066], [0088], [0094]). Regarding claim 22, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 11. Wang further teaches the reception configuration does not include a gap period before or after the second symbol when the timing difference is less than a threshold (The terminal device is described as using an offset (i.e., a gap period) when the timing difference exceeds a threshold. The reception configuration may thus be interpreted as not including a gap period before or after the second symbol when the timing difference is less than a threshold; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0063]-[0066], [0077]). Regarding claim 23, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 11. Wang further teaches the first information includes gap information indicative of a gap period before or after the second symbol (The terminal device may obtain a time of arrival (TOA) difference between TRP 120-1 and TRP 120-2 and may transmit information about updated time offset configuration (i.e., gap information indicative of a gap period) to the network device. Such information may be indicative as to whether or not an offset is required before the second symbol. The first information may thus be interpreted as including gap information indicative of a gap period before or after the second symbol; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0063]-[0066], [0077]), wherein the gap period is based on a subcarrier spacing (SCS) of a component carrier (CC) of the first symbol or the second symbol (The threshold used to determine whether an offset (i.e., a gap period) is required before the second symbol is described as potentially being based on the required subcarrier spacing (SCS). The reception configuration may thus be interpreted as including a gap period before or after the second symbol, and wherein the gap period is based on a subcarrier spacing (SCS) of a component carrier (CC) of the first symbol or the second symbol; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0038], [0059], [0063]-[0066], [0077], [0088], [0094]), wherein the gap information includes a quantity of gap symbols included in the gap period, and wherein the quantity is greater than or equal to 1 (The terminal device is described as potentially indicating to TRPs that at least a second symbol adjacent to the first symbol is unavailable for downlink transmission based on the timing difference exceeding a threshold. Such an indication may be interpreted as gap information that includes a quantity of gap symbols included in the gap period, and wherein the quantity is greater than or equal to 1; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0063]-[0066], [0077]). Regarding claim 24, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 23. Wang further teaches the quantity is based on the subcarrier spacing (SCS) of the component carrier (CC) of the first symbol or the second symbol (The threshold used to determine whether an offset (i.e., a gap period) is required before the second symbol is described as potentially being based on the required subcarrier spacing (SCS). The reception configuration may thus be interpreted as including a gap period before or after the second symbol, and wherein the gap period is based on a subcarrier spacing (SCS) of a component carrier (CC) of the first symbol or the second symbol; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0038], [0059], [0063]-[0066], [0077], [0088], [0094]) and the first information includes an indication of whether the gap period is before or after the second symbol (The terminal device is described as potentially indicating to TRPs that at least a second symbol adjacent to the first symbol is unavailable for downlink transmission based on the timing difference exceeding a threshold. Such an indication reserving a symbol before the second symbol may be interpreted as including an indication of whether the gap period is before or after the second symbol; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0063]-[0066], [0077]). Regarding claim 25, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 23. Wang further teaches the first information includes layer 1 (L1)-reference signal received power (RSRP) or L1-signal to interference and noise ratio (SINR) (The terminal is described as reporting information (i.e., first information) to the network, and such information is described as potentially including RSRP and SINR; Wang; Figs. 2-10; Tables 2 and 7; [0065], [0080], [0103], [0143]). Regarding claim 26, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 11. Wang further teaches the first information includes capability information relating to a capability of the apparatus (The terminal is described as potentially reporting capability information to the network device for receiving transmissions. The terminal may thus be interpreted as transmitting first information that includes capability information relating to a capability of the apparatus; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0046]-[0048], [0087]-[0089], [0122]-[0124]) and wherein to receive the first symbol, the processing system is configured to receive the first symbol using rate matching based on the capability of the apparatus (The terminal is described as potentially using rate matching for receiving symbols, and such rate matching may be interpreted as being based on the capability of the apparatus; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0063]-[0066], [0071], [0109], [0148]). Regarding claim 27, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 11. Wang further teaches the processing system is configured to, receive from the second node, a third symbol based on a receive timing of the second symbol (Transmissions from the second node (e.g., TRP 120-2) such as those depicted for instance in at least Fig. 3 may be comprised of more than one symbol and may thus be interpreted as being comprised of a third symbol after the second symbol. Such a third symbol may thus be interpreted as being received based on a receive timing of the second symbol; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0062]-[0066]) based on the third symbol having a same physical cell identifier as the second symbol or based on the third symbol having a transmission configuration indicator (TCI) state quasi-co-located with that of the second symbol (One TRP is described as potentially corresponding to one physical cell ID (i.e., PCI). Two symbols received from the same TRP (i.e., the second symbol and the third symbol) may thus be interpreted as having a same physical cell identifier; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0034], [0059], [0063]-[0066], [0077]). Regarding claim 28, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 11. Wang further teaches the first symbol overlaps the second symbol in time (Transmissions from both the first node (e.g., TRP 120-1) and the second node (e.g., TRP 120-2) such as those depicted for instance in at least Fig. 3 may be comprised of more than one symbol, and at least some of such symbols may overlap in time. Such overlapping symbols may also be interpreted as the claimed first and second symbols. The first symbol may thus be interpreted as overlapping the second symbol in time; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0062]-[0066]), and wherein to receive the first symbol, the processing system is configured to receive the first symbol based on rate matching around resource elements of the first symbol that overlap the second symbol, rate matching around a first set of resource elements of the first symbol that overlap the second symbol and a second set of resource elements in a guard zone around the first set of resource elements, or rate matching around all resource elements of the first symbol (The terminal is described as potentially using rate matching for receiving symbols (e.g., overlapping symbols that are interpreted as the first and second symbol). The terminal may thus be interpreted as receiving the first symbol based on rate matching around resource elements of the first symbol that overlap the second symbol, rate matching around a first set of resource elements of the first symbol that overlap the second symbol and a second set of resource elements in a guard zone around the first set of resource elements, or rate matching around all resource elements of the first symbol; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0063]-[0066], [0071], [0109], [0148]). Regarding claim 29, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 11. Wang further teaches the first symbol overlaps the second symbol in time (Transmissions from both the first node (e.g., TRP 120-1) and the second node (e.g., TRP 120-2) such as those depicted for instance in at least Fig. 3 may be comprised of more than one symbol, and at least some of such symbols may overlap in time. Such overlapping symbols may also be interpreted as the claimed first and second symbols. The first symbol may thus be interpreted as overlapping the second symbol in time; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0062]-[0066]), and wherein the processing system is configured to: transmit, to the first node, an indication of a capability for rate matching around overlapping symbols (The terminal is described as potentially reporting capability information to the network device for receiving asynchronous transmissions (e.g., transmissions having potentially overlapping symbols). The terminal may thus be interpreted as transmitting an indication of a capability for rate matching around overlapping symbols; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0046]-[0048], [0087]-[0089], [0122]-[0124]); and rate match, based on the indication of the capability, around at least resource elements that overlap the second symbol (The terminal is described as potentially using rate matching for receiving symbols (e.g., overlapping symbols that are interpreted as the first and second symbol). Such rate matching may be interpreted as being performed based on the capability of the terminal and thus also as based on the indication of the capability. The terminal may thus be interpreted as rate matching, based on the indication of the capability, around at least resource elements that overlap the second symbol; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0046]-[0048], [0063]-[0066], [0071], [0087]-[0089], [0109], [0122]-[0124], [0148]).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 15 and 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2024/0430051, Wang hereinafter) in view of Zhu et al. (US 2022/0085943, Zhu hereinafter). Regarding claims 15 and 35, Wang teaches the limitations of claims 14 and 34 respectively. However, although Wang teaches that the first information is potentially one symbol in length (The terminal device is described as potentially indicating to TRPs that at least a second symbol adjacent to the first symbol is unavailable for downlink transmission based on the timing difference exceeding a threshold. Such an indication is described as potentially being transmitted in one symbol; Wang; Figs. 2-10; [0059], [0063]-[0066], [0077]), Wang does not specifically disclose that the first information is one bit in length. Zhu further teaches the first information is one bit in length (A receive timing difference report may contain a one-bit flag (i.e., the first information) to indicate whether the target TRP of the receive timing difference report ought to apply timing advance or timing back-off with respect to the reported receive timing difference. The first information may thus be interpreted as being one bit in length; Zhu; [0178], [0205]-[0207]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Zhu regarding indication of timing difference information with the teachings as in Wang regarding indication of timing difference information. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance and/or efficiency by using less bandwidth for transmission of timing difference information as well as requiring less processing time and/or resources at the TRP for processing such timing difference information (Zhu; [0178], [0205]-[0207]).
Claim(s) 18-19 and 38-39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al. (US 2024/0430051, Wang hereinafter) in view of Kim et al. (US 2024/0206000, Kim hereinafter). Regarding claims 18 and 38, Wang teaches the limitations of claims 1 and 31 respectively. Kim teaches the first node and the second node are associated with a first physical cell identity (PCI) (TRPs (i.e., the first node and the second node) may share the same physical cell identifier; Kim; [0094]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kim regarding communication with multiple TRPs with the teachings as in Wang regarding communication with multiple TRPs. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by enabling a plurality of TRPs may jointly transmit DL-RS(s), and a terminal may perform communication based on the DL-RS(s) received from the TRP(s) and by compensating for a frequency offset and/or a time offset in advance (Kim; [0026]). Regarding claim 19, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 18. However, Wang does not specifically disclose the first node and the second node are different transmission/reception points (TRPs) of a same base station. Kim teaches the first node and the second node are different transmission/reception points (TRPs) of a same base station (TRPs (i.e., the first node and the second node) may be different TRPs of a same base station; Kim; [0094]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kim regarding communication with multiple TRPs with the teachings as in Wang regarding communication with multiple TRPs. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by enabling a plurality of TRPs may jointly transmit DL-RS(s), and a terminal may perform communication based on the DL-RS(s) received from the TRP(s) and by compensating for a frequency offset and/or a time offset in advance (Kim; [0026]). Regarding claim 39, Wang teaches the limitations of claim 18. However, Wang does not specifically disclose the first node and the second node are different transmission/reception points (TRPs) of a same base station. Kim teaches the first node and the second node are different transmission/reception points (TRPs) of a same base station (TRPs (i.e., the first node and the second node) may be different TRPs of a same base station; Kim; [0094]). Therefore it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to utilize the teachings as in Kim regarding communication with multiple TRPs with the teachings as in Wang regarding communication with multiple TRPs. The motivation for doing so would have been to increase performance by enabling a plurality of TRPs may jointly transmit DL-RS(s), and a terminal may perform communication based on the DL-RS(s) received from the TRP(s) and by compensating for a frequency offset and/or a time offset in advance (Kim; [0026]).
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 ERIC A MYERS whose telephone number is (571)272-0997. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 10:30am to 7:00pm.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at 5712722832. 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.
/ERIC MYERS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2474
Prosecution Insights