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 and Argument
1. This communication is in response to applicant's 01/16/2026 communications in the application of Zewail et al. for the "PHASE TRACKING REFERENCE SIGNAL CONFIGURATION FOR RATE-SPLITTING MULTIPLE INPUT MULTIPLE OUTPUT COMMUNICATIONS" filed 09/09/2022. The amendment and response have been entered and made of record. Claims 1-30 are pending in the present application.
2. Applicant’s remarks and argument to the rejected claims are insufficient to distinguish the claimed invention from the cited prior arts or overcome the rejection of said claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 as discussed below. Applicant’s argument with respect to the pending claims have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive for at least the following reasons.
3. In response to Applicant’s argument that the reference does not teach or reasonably suggest the functionality upon which the Examiner relies for the rejection. The Examiner first emphasizes for the record that the claims employ a broader in scope than the Applicant’s disclosure in all aspects. In addition, the Applicant has not argued any narrower interpretation of the claim limitations, nor amended the claims significantly enough to construe a narrower meaning to the limitations. Since the claims breadth allows multiple interpretations and meanings, which are broader than Applicant’s disclosure, the Examiner is required to interpret the claim limitations in terms of their broadest reasonable interpretations while determining patentability of the disclosed invention. See MPEP 2111. In other words, the claims must be given their broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification and the interpretation that those skilled in the art would reach. See In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d 1367, 1372, 54 USPQ2d 1664, 1667 (Fed. Cir. 2000), In re Cortright, 165 F.3d 1353, 1359, 49 USPQ2d 1464, 1468 (Fed. Cir. 1999), and In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 2004 WL 1067528 (Fed. Cir. May 13, 2004). Any term that is not clearly defined in the specification must be given its plain meaning as understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2111.01. See also In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321, 13 USPQ2d 1320, 1322 (Fed. Cir. 1989), Sunrace Roots Enter. Co. v. SRAM Corp., 336 F.3d 1298, 1302, 67 USPQ2d 1438, 1441 (Fed. Cir. 2003), Brookhill-Wilk 1, LLC v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., 334 F.3d 1294, 1298 67 USPQ2d 1132, 1136 (Fed. Cir. 2003). The interpretation of the claims by their broadest reasonable interpretation reduces the possibility that, once the claims are issued, the claims are interpreted more broadly than justified. See In re Prater, 415 F.2d 1393, 1404-05, 162 USPQ 541, 550-551 (CCPA 1969). Also, limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim are not read into the claim. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Therefore, the failure to significantly narrow definition or scope of the claims and supply arguments commensurate in scope with the claims implies the Applicant intends broad interpretation be given to the claims. The Examiner has interpreted the claims in parallel to the Applicant in the response and reiterates the need for the Applicant to distinctly define the claimed invention.
4. In response to Applicant’s argument that there is no suggestion to combine the references, i.e., Suh et al. (US#11,696,285) in view of Kim et al. (US#2025/0317251) as proposed in the office action. The Examiner recognizes that references cannot be arbitrarily combined and that there must be some reason why one skilled in the art would be motivated to make the proposed combination of primary and secondary references. In re Nomiya, 184 USPQ 607 (CCPA 1975). However, there is no requirement that a motivation to make the modification be expressly articulated. The test for combining references is what the combination of disclosures taken as a whole would suggest to one of ordinary skill in the art. In re McLaughlin, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). It must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
5. Applicant's argument with respect to the rejected claims that the cited reference fail to teach or suggest wherein “a second control message that identifies a first PTRS port for the one or more private messages and a second PTRS port for the one or more common messages” (page 10, last paragraphs). In response to the above-mentioned argument, examiner respectively disagrees. Given the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language, as required by MPEP 2111, Applicant’s attention is directed to Fig. 7 of Kim et al. (US#2025/0317251) for the technique of PTRS simultaneously transmit across multiple panels, in which the UE identifies that first information of the PT-RS port to DM-RS port association information indicates a first DM-RS port associated with a first PT-RS port among DM-RS ports corresponding to at least one of a first SRI or first precoding information, and second information of the PT-RS port to DM-RS port association information indicates a second DM- RS port associated with a second PT-RS port among DM-RS ports corresponding to at least one of a second SRI or second precoding information (para [0005]-[0010] & [0168]-[0175]: transmitting/receiving a first PT-RS on a first PT-RS port and transmitting a second PT-RS on a second PT-RS port to the BS). Furthermore, it’s well known in the art in rate-splitting-based interference mitigation, transmitted data streams are split into two parts: the common data stream that is decoded at a plurality of UEs, and the private data stream that is decoded only at intended UEs. By decoding the common data stream of the interference, part of the interference is canceled, and consequently UE throughput can be improved (the network node to identify a PTRS port for private messages and another PTRS port for the common messages, so that a PTRS port for the common messages can be shared between UEs. For a PTRS port-to-layer mapping, or a layer-to-antenna mapping, the network entity may transmit each private stream to the corresponding UE and may transmit the common stream to all of the multiple UEs - functional split, such as those defined by 3GPP).
Since no substantial amendments have been made and the Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive, the claims are drawn to the same invention and the text of the prior art rejection can be found in the previous Office Action. Therefore, the Examiner maintains that the references cited and applied in the last office actions for the rejection of the claims are maintained in this office action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
6. 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 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:
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.
7. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103, 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 and potential 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under 35 U.S.C. 103.
8. Claims 1-6, 12-19, 25-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suh et al. (US#11,696,285) in view of Kim et al. (US#2025/0317251).
Regarding claims 1, 12, the references disclose techniques for rate-splitting multiple input-multiple output (MIMO) communication system, according to the essential features of the claims. Suh et al. (US#11,696,285) discloses an apparatus for wireless communication at a user equipment (UE)/network node, comprising: one or more processors; memory coupled with the one or more processors; and instructions stored in the memory and executable by the one or more processors (see Fig. 15; Col. 2, lines 4-18 for the structure of UE/BS includes processor 202a/202b, memory 204a/204b) to cause the apparatus to: receive/transmit, from a network node/to a plurality of UEs, a first control message identifying that multi-user multiple input multiple output signals from the network node comprise one or more private messages for the UE and one or more common messages for the UE and at least one second UE (Figs. 9, 11; Col. 1; lines 58 to Col. 2, line 35 & Col. 14, lines 39-67: configuring a common message and a private message based on a rate splitting multiple access RSMA scheme in a wireless communication system, in which the base station may distinguish the messages for each terminal into common messages and private messages through a message splitter. Herein, the common messages for the each terminal may be generated as a single common message W.sub.c through a message combiner. Herein, each of the terminals 921, 922, 923 may restore information corresponding to its message assigned in the common message by decoding a part of the common message. Next, each of the terminals 921, 922, 923 may restore an entire message by restoring private messages); receive/transmit a second control message that identifies a first phase tracking reference signal port for the one or more private messages and a second phase tracking reference signal port for the one or more common messages (Fig. 9; Col. 3, lines 18-33 & Col. 15, lines 15-48 : a base station may change rate splitting for a common message and a private message of a terminal based on common message feedback information and private message feedback information, and the base station may transmit changed common message configuration information and changed private message configuration information to a terminal based on the changed rate splitting). It’s noted that, in rate-splitting-based interference mitigation, transmitted data streams are split into two parts: the common data stream that is decoded at a plurality of UEs, and the private data stream that is decoded only at intended UEs. By decoding the common data stream of the interference, part of the interference is canceled, and consequently UE throughput can be improved.
However, Suh reference does not disclose expressly wherein a first/second PTRS port for the private/common messages. In the same field of endeavor, Kim et al. (US#2025/0317251) discloses in Fig. 7 a flowchart illustrated a phase tracking-reference signal (PT-RS) for simultaneous transmission across multiple panels (STxMP), in which the UE receives DCI for STxMP from the BS in step A05. In particular, a 2-bit SRS resource set indicator included in the DCI is set to 10 or 11 to indicate SDM STxMP PUSCH transmission. In step A10, the UE identifies PT-RS port to DM-RS port association information included in the DCI. In particular, the UE identifies that first information of the PT-RS port to DM-RS port association information indicates a first DM-RS port associated with a first PT-RS port among DM-RS ports corresponding to at least one of a first SRI or first precoding information, and second information of the PT-RS port to DM-RS port association information indicates a second DM-RS port associated with a second PT-RS port among DM-RS ports corresponding to at least one of a second SRI or second precoding information (para [0005]-[0010] & [0168]-[0175]: transmitting/receiving a first PT-RS on a first PT-RS port and transmitting a second PT-RS on a second PT-RS port to the BS).
One skilled in the art would have recognized the need for effectively and efficiently for performing rate matching for a physical downlink shared channel (PDSCH), and would have applied Kim’s transmitting a phase tracking reference signal (PT-RS) for simultaneous transmission across multiple panels (STxMP) in a wireless communication system into Suh’s techniques supporting a rate splitting multiple access (RSMA) scheme in wireless communication system. Therefore, It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to apply Kim’s method for transmitting PTRS for simultaneous transmission across multiple pannels in wireless communication system, and apparatus therefor into Suh’s method and apparatus for transmitting a signal in a wireless communication system with the motivation being to provide a method and system for PTRS configuration for rate-splitting MIMO communications.
Regarding claims 2, 13, the reference further teaches wherein receive/transmit, with the one or more common messages, a phase tracking reference signal using the second phase tracking reference signal port (Kim et al.: Fig. 7; para [0170]-[0173]).
Regarding claims 3, 16, the reference further teaches wherein receive/transmit, with the one or more private messages, a phase tracking reference signal using the first phase tracking reference signal port (Kim et al.: Fig. 7; para [0170]-[0174]).
Regarding claims 4, 17 the reference further teaches wherein receive an indication that the first phase tracking reference signal port is private for the UE, the second phase tracking reference signal port is to be shared between the UE and the at least one second UE, or both (Kim et al.: Fig. 7; para [0168]-[0175]).
Regarding claims 5, 18 the reference further teaches wherein receive/transmit an indication that the first phase tracking reference signal port is shared between the UE and the at least one second UE (Kim et al.: Fig. 7; para [0168]-[0175]).
Regarding claims 6, 19 the reference further teaches wherein a first precoder associated with the one or more private messages corresponds to the UE, and the first precoder is different from at least one second precoder corresponding to the at least one second UE (Kim et al.: Fig. 7; para [0005]-[0013] & [0170]-[0172]).
Regarding claim 14, the reference further teaches wherein transmit a third control message to at least the second UE indicating a rate matching pattern for receiving the phase tracking reference signal (Kim et al.: Fig. 7; para [0005]-[0013] & [0170]-[0172]).
Regarding claim 15, the reference further teaches wherein the one or more common messages comprise a data transmission associated with at least the second UE (Su et al.; Fig. 8; Col. 2, lines 19-35 & Col. 13, lines 21-58).
Regarding claims 25-30, they are method claims corresponding to the apparatus claims 1-5, 12 discussed above. Therefore, claims 25-30 are analyzed and rejected as previously discussed with respect to claims 1-5, 12 above.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 7-11, 20-24 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claims, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
10. The following is an examiner's statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record fails to disclose or suggest wherein receive/transmit an indication that the first phase tracking reference signal port is associated with a lowest demodulation reference signal port index of a first plurality of demodulation reference signal port indices corresponding to the one or more private messages; and identify the first phase tracking reference signal port based at least in part on the lowest demodulation reference signal port index; wherein receive/transmit a third control message indicating a phase tracking reference signal density in a time-domain, a phase tracking reference signal density in a
frequency-domain, a resource block offset of a frequency allocation, a resource element
offset of the frequency allocation, a modulation and coding scheme of one or more phase tracking reference signals, a plurality of resource elements for receiving the one or more phase tracking reference signals, or any combination thereof; wherein receive/transmit a third control message indicating a plurality of resource elements scheduled for one or more phase tracking reference signal transmissions to the at least one second UE and using the second phase tracking reference signal port; and refrain from transmitting data using the plurality of resource elements based at least in part on receiving the third control message, as specifically recited in the claims.
Conclusion
11. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure is indicated in PTO form 892.
12. Applicant's future amendments need to comply with the requirements of MPEP § 714.02, MPEP § 2163.04 and MPEP § 2163.06.
"with respect to newly added or amended claims, applicant should show support in the original disclosure for the new or amended claims." See MPEP § 714.02 and § 2163.06 ("Applicant should * * * specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure."); and MPEP § 2163.04 ("If applicant amends the claims and points out where and/or how the originally filed disclosure supports the amendment(s), and the examiner finds that the disclosure does not reasonably convey that the inventor had possession of the subject matter of the amendment at the time of the filing of the application, the examiner has the initial burden of presenting evidence or reasoning to explain why persons skilled in the art would not recognize in the disclosure a description of the invention defined by the claims."). See In re Smith, 458 F.2d 1389, 1395, 173 USPQ 679, 683 (CCPA 1972) In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d at 262,191 USPQ at 96 (emphasis added). "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted.
New claims and amendments to the claims already in the application should be scrutinized not only for new matter but also for new terminology. While an applicant is not limited to the nomenclature used in the application as filed, he or she should make appropriate amendment of the specification whenever this nomenclature is departed from by amendment of the claims so as to have clear support or antecedent basis in the specification for the new terms appearing in the claims. This is necessary in order to insure certainty in construing the claims in the light of the specification." Ex parte Kotler, 1901 C.D. 62, 95 O.G. 2684 (Comm'r Pat. 1901). See 37 CFR 1.75, MPEP § 608.01 (i) and § 1302.01.
Note that examiners should ensure that the terms and phrases used in claims presented late in prosecution of the application (including claims amended via an examiner's amendment) 07find clear support or antecedent basis in the description so that the meaning of the terms in the claims may be ascertainable by reference to the description, see 37 CFR 1,75(d)(1 ). If the examiner determines that the claims presented late in prosecution do not comply with 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1), applicant will be required to make appropriate amendment to the description to provide clear support or antecedent basis for the terms appearing in the claims provided no new matter is introduced."
"USPTO personnel are to give claims their broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the supporting disclosure." In re Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054-55, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027-28 (Fed. Cir. 1997). MPEP § 2106. "
13. THIS ACTION 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 mailing date of this final action.
14. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to M. Phan whose telephone number is (571) 272-3149. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon - Fri from 6:00 to 3:00.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Chirag Shah, can be reached on (571) 272-3144. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is (571) 273-8300.
Any inquiry of a general nature or relating to the status of this application or proceeding should be directed to the receptionist whose telephone number is (571) 272-2600.
15. 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 any questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at toll free 1-866-217-9197.
Mphan
Mar. 13, 2026
/MAN U PHAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2477