DETAILED ACTION
1. The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
2. 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.
Status of Claims
1. The following is a non-final office action in response to the applicant’s arguments/remarks received 12/15/2025.
2. Claims 31, 34 - 40 are currently pending and have been examined.
3. Claims 31 and 39 have been amended.
4. Claims 1 – 30 and 32 have been cancelled.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
1. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
The arguments/remarks presented by the applicant/applicant’s representative on 09/29/2025 along with the amendments made to the independent claims were thoroughly reviewed resulting in the scope of the independent claims being changed. A further search and reconsideration were conducted, see new claim rejection presented below.
Claim interpretation
1. Limitations appearing in the specification but not recited in the claim should not be read into the claim. E-Pass Techs., Inc. v. 3Com Corp., 343 F.3d 1364, 1369, 67 USPQ2d 1947, 1950 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (claims must be interpreted "in view of the specification" without importing limitations from the specification into the claims unnecessarily) [MPEP 2106 Sec I, C]. “Though understanding the claim language may be aided by explanations contained in the written description, it is important not to import into a claim limitations that are not part of the claim. For example, a particular embodiment appearing in the written description may not be read into a claim when the claim language is broader than the embodiment.” Superguide Corp. v. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc., 358 F.3d 870, 875, 69 USPQ2d 1865, 1868 (Fed. Cir. 2004). [MPEP 2111.01 Sec II]. Thus, the Examiner interprets Applicant’s claims "in view of the specification" and does not “import into a claim limitation that are not part of the claim”.
2. When multiple limitations are connected with “OR”, one of the limitations does not have any patentable weight since both of the limitations are optional.
Claim Objection
The claims should be numbered in consecutive order, claim 33 is missing. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 recites: “…receiving downlink control information (DCI) comprising second information about an index which indicates oneoffset values…”, that is, an index is used to indicate one of the one or more second slot offset value. Claim 31 further recites: “…performing transmission of a reference signal in a slot x based on the first slot offset value indicated by the index and the second slot offset value…”, this limitation is saying the first offset value is indicated by the index, however, the index was associated with the second offset value as seen the first limitation above. Appropriate correction and or clarification is needed. The claim is rejected as best understood. The dependent claims are all objected by virtue of their dependency on an objected based claim.
Claim 31 recites “…a set of one or more first slot offset values and one or more second slot offset values…”. One can interpret the set of one or more first slot offset values = one or more second slot offset values since there is no distinguishing language or feature that makes the first set of offset value different from the second offset values.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2023/0114925 A1) in view of Shi et al. (US 2020/0106551 A1).
Claim 31, Yang discloses: A method for a terminal device configured to communicate with a network device, the method [the method and method steps are seen in figure 10] comprising:
receiving radio resource control (RRC) message comprising first information comprising a set of one or more first slot offset values and one or more second slot offset values; [¶ 0117, a list of more than one slot offset is indicated by the RRC and store at the UE. In other words one or more first offset value and one or more second offset value is interpreted as more than one offset value being signaled to the UE using RRC (there is no distinguishing language or feature that makes the first set of offset value different from the second offset values) ]
receiving downlink control information (DCI) comprising second information about an index which indicates onevalues; and [¶ 0117, the DCI possesses codepoints that indicates a particular slot offset value in the list of offset values, this implies an index since the particular offset in the list of offset values is identified through the DCI via codepoint bits]
performing transmission of a reference signal in a slot x based on the first slot offset value indicated by the index and the second slot offset value [¶ 0116, “… A-SRS slot indication provided to DCI. After determining the slot offset 604, a UE may then transmit at least one SRS transmission 606 using the determined slot offset.…”, The DCI which indicates the slot offset is used to determine the exact slot over which the SRS must be transmitted. As seen in figure 117, RRC sends a first and second slot offset values that is stored in the UE, the DCI will indicate further to the UE a particular slot offset value in the list of slot offset values stored at the UE in order to perform SRS transmission. In other words, both the first and second set of slot offset values is being used, since the RRC signals both set of values and the DCI selects one of which to perform transmission of SRS. The offset value dictates the slot on which SRS is to be transmitted].
and [see the last sentence of ¶ 0117].
Yang discloses every aspect of claim 31 except for: slot X is determined not only by a first and second offset but a slot n comprising third information triggering SRS transmission.
However, such deficiency is disclosed by Shi: ¶ 0076 states the indication information is transmitted using the DCI, next, ¶ 0008 states the indication information sent by the network is used for triggering the terminal device to receive the first signal, further in ¶0028 states a particular slot (slot m in this case) is determined from the first slot offset and a second slot offset along with the indication information that is used to trigger the UE. In other words, the DCI in the reference of Shi is used to communicate at least a second offset and a trigger information of a given reference signal, and in ¶ 0028 all three parameters a first offset, a second offset and the trigger information (indication information) pertaining to a slot (n) of the reference signal can be determined at the UE. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Zhang’s system in view of the teaching of Shi. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to improve overall system performance [¶ 0005 of Shi].
Claim(s) 34 – 37 and 40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2023/0114925 A1) in view of Shi et al. (US 2020/0106551 A1) and Zhang et al. (US 2020/0412581 A1, the foreign filing date is relied on, a copy was provided in the first office action).
Regarding claim 34, Yang in view of Shi discloses: The method according to claim 31 (see rejected claim 31).
Yang in view of Shi does not disclose: wherein the slot x is after the slot n by at least the first slot offset value and the second slot offset value, such difference is seen in the reference of Zhang, see: see figure 6c and 6d, slot x is interpreted as n+k+Δ occurs after all the modification and is seen at 627 and 638 of fig 6c and 6d respectively. After adding k (standard offset) + Δ (additional offset) to n results slot x which will end up after n.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang’s system in view of Shi and Zhang. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to enhanced transmission opportunities for sounding reference signals (SRS) [¶ 002 of Zhang].
Claim 35, Zhang further discloses: The method according to claim 31, wherein:
the first information is received, from the network device, in a radio resource control (RRC) message; [¶ 0079, standard off set is received via RRC, see also Yang ¶ 0117]
the second information is received, from the network device in downlink control information (DCI); and [¶ 0079, the PDCCH is used to transmit the additional offset, the DCI is housed in the PDCCH = ¶ 0081, the additional timing offset can be sent by DL control signal one being the DCI. See Yang: ¶ 0117]
the third information is received, from the network device in downlink control information (DCI). [third information is known as the trigger as seen in claim 32 of this application and is sent via the DCI see ¶ 0066 of Zhang. See also Yang: ¶ 0117 ]
Claim 36, Zhang further discloses: The method according to claim 31, wherein the second slot offset value is above the first slot offset value. [see figure 6C, k is the first offset value and Δ the second offset value and is above K since the transmission of SRS is propelled Δ slots above K].
Claim 37, Zhang further discloses: The method according to claim 31, comprising: determining whether a resource for the reference signal based on the second slot offset value is available; [¶ 0098, the second offset = the additional offset and the window of slots (resources) must be determined to be available, one example later given in ¶ 0098 UE 115 may schedule ap-SRS transmissions at an available slot (“determine which of the slot”) anywhere within transmission window 905] and performing the communication of the reference signal in the resource in the slot x . [the latter portion of ¶ 0073, that is k or K+ Δ may be applied to the trigger slot n from the grated UL slot for the next available flexible slot. In other words Δ is the second offset] based on the second slot offset value in accordance with the determination that the resource is available [¶ 0098, a window of slots (resources) has to be determined to be available when using the additional offset].
Claim 40, Zhang further discloses: The method according to claim 31, wherein the second slot offset value is with respect to the first slot offset value. [¶ 0073, ¶ 0079, the additional offset is sent by the base station to the UE to either override the initial offset or to be added to the initial offset for SRS UL transmission, these offset values have to be chosen carefully to make sure the SRS is transmitted in the exact location of the UL channel, see ¶ 0092].
Claim(s) 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2023/0114925 A1) in view of Shi et al. (US 2020/0106551 A1) and Faxer et al. (US 2021/0409178 A1).
Regarding claim 38, Yang and Shi disclose: The method according to claim 31 (see rejected claim 1).
Yang further discloses: and wherein the second information comprises at least one of the following: a subset in the set; and a slot offset value from the set. [¶ 0117, the second information deals with the DCI and it indicates trough codepoints, subset of offset that was indicated via the RRC]
Yang and Shi do not disclose: wherein the first information comprises: a set of first slot offset values, however such difference is seen in the reference of Faxer, see ¶ 0086.The nominal offset is the first offset received (¶ 0174 - ¶ 0175) and can be more than one (¶ 0086). Note: in ¶ 0178 does the same operation as that of the primary reference using slot and two offset hence Faxer being analogous art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang’s system in view of Shi and Faxer. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to configure the transmission of SRS in symbols of a slot [¶ 0084 of Faxer].
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang et al. (US 2023/0114925 A1) in view of Shi et al. (US 2020/0106551 A1), Zhang et al. (US 2020/0412581 A1, the foreign filing date is relied on, a copy was provided in the first office action) and Faxer et al. (US 2021/0409178 A1).
Claim 39, Yang in view of Shi discloses: The method according to claim 31, (see rejected claim 31),
Zhang discloses: … and the second information comprises: a second set of slot offset values, and wherein the method further comprises determining multiple resource sets of the resource based on the second set of slot offset values. [¶ 0073, ¶ 0079, the additional offset is sent by the base station to the UE to either override the initial offset or to be added to the initial offset for SRS UL transmission, these offset values has to be chosen carefully to make sure the SRS is transmitted in the exact location of the UL channel; ¶ 0091-¶ 0092, the UE receives a set of additional offsets which are stored in memory for use. The multiple set of resources are seen in ¶ 0093, each additional offset produces resources to transmit SRS in the UL of a defined window].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang’s system in view of Shi and Zhang.The motivation for making the above modification would have been to enhanced transmission opportunities for sounding reference signals (SRS) [¶ 002 of Zhang].
Yang in view of Shi and Zhang does not disclose: wherein the first information comprises: a first set of slots offset values for multiple resource sets of a resource for the reference signal, however Faxer discloses the above missing feature see ¶ 0159, ¶ 0151. If you look at the table in ¶ 0148 that is trigger by a single RRC you will noticed “srs-resourceIDlist”, this list contains a set of resources and also the parameter in the table “slotoffset” can be an integer of 1..32 [The nominal offset is the first offset received (¶ 0174 - ¶ 0175) and can be more than one (¶ 0086)]. Hence multiple offsets for multiple resource sets are evident. Note in ¶ 0178 does the same operation as that of the primary reference hence Faxer is analogous art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Yang’s system in view of Shi, Zhang and Faxer. The motivation for making the above modification would have been to configure the transmission of SRS in symbols of a slot [¶ 0084 of Faxer].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR whose telephone number is (571)270-7909. The examiner can normally be reached 6:00 AM - 3:00 PM.
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, Nawaz M Asad can be reached at 571-272-3988. 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.
MAHARISHI V. KHIRODHAR
Examiner
Art Unit 2463
/MAHARISHI V KHIRODHAR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2463