DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The new amendment “identify a plurality of transmission and reception points (TRPs) concurrently associated with a single SRS resource set based on the SRS configuration information” is taught by Xi at [0006] “teaches WTRU may receive configuration information including a SRS beam indication from multiple TRPs and transmit using a SRS resource to each of the multiple TRPs on an associated UL beam(s) based on the received configuration information”. There is a configuration information with an SRS resource associated with multiple TRPs. The claims remain unpatentable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Independent Claims
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO-2020226395-A1) in view of Xi (WO-2019195528-A1).
As to claim 2: Yang teaches one or more non-transitory computer-readable media (NTCRM) having instructions, stored thereon, that when executed by one or more processors of a user equipment (UE) configure to the UE to: receive sounding reference signal (SRS) configuration information for multi-downlink control information (multi-DCI) (In addition, the SRS resource (or SRS resource set) in which transmission is indicated through the multi-slot DCI overlaps in time with all of the specific PUSCH resources (or the DMRS symbol of the corresponding PUSCH) scheduled through the multi-slot DCI … As another method, when SRS transmission on an SRS resource set consisting of a plurality of (M) SRS symbols is indicated through the multi-slot DCI, a corresponding SRS (resource set) within a slot determined as a corresponding SRS transmission time point) … ; and encode an SRS message for transmission to a TRP based on the SRS configuration information ([0005, 6, 17, 75, 96, 184]).
Yang may not explicitly teach and multi-transmission and reception point (multi-TRP) operation; identify a plurality of transmission and reception points (TRPs) concurrently associated with a single SRS resource set based on the SRS configuration information. However, Xi teaches and multi-transmission and reception point (multi-TRP) operation ([0199-201] WTRU panels associated with one TRP or multiple TRPs, separate SRS fields are part of DCI signaling to independently indicate a beam used for PUSCH transmission for multi-TRP or multipanel transmission 2202); identify a plurality of transmission and reception points (TRPs) concurrently associated with a single SRS resource set based on the SRS configuration information ([0005, 6, 171, 184] WTRU may receive configuration information including a SRS beam indication from multiple TRPs and transmit using a SRS resource to each of the multiple TRPs on an associated UL beam(s) based on the received configuration information).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement multi-TRP, taught by Xi, into the LTE communication system, taught by Yang, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to improve signal reliability and coverage. In addition it would have been obvious to combine Yang and Xi in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Dependent Claims
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO-2020226395-A1), Xi (WO-2019195528-A1) in view of Park (US-10841059).
As to claim 3: Yang teaches the one or more NTCRM of claim 2
Yang may not explicitly teach wherein the configuration information included in a downlink control information (DCI) and includes a transmission and reception point (TRP)-specific SRS trigger state indicated by a code point of an SRS request field. However, Park teaches wherein the configuration information included in a downlink control information (DCI) and includes a transmission and reception point (TRP)-specific SRS trigger state indicated by a code point of an SRS request field (claim 1 receiving, from the base station, the DCI triggering the aperiodic SRS in a first slot, wherein the DCI triggering the aperiodic SRS includes a field for triggering of a SRS resource set, wherein a specific code point is configured by the field, and wherein a specific SRS resource set associated with the specific code point based on the second information is triggered based on the specific code point).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement SRS codepoint, taught by Park, into the SRS resources, taught by Yang, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to configure SRS and estimate uplink channel quality. In addition it would have been obvious to combine Park and Yang in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO-2020226395-A1), Xi (WO-2019195528-A1), Park (US-10841059) in view of Yamada (US-20200336355).
As to claim 4: Yang teaches the one or more NTCRM of claim 3.
Yang, Park may not explicitly teach wherein the code point of the SRS request field is to trigger different SRS resource sets by different TRPs. However, Yamada teaches wherein the code point of the SRS request field is to trigger different SRS resource sets by different TRPs ([0167]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement multiple SRS trigger, taught by Yamada, into the SRS code point, taught by Park, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to estimate uplink channel quality. In addition it would have been obvious to combine Park and Yamada in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO-2020226395-A1), Xi (WO-2019195528-A1), Park (US-10841059) in view of Sun (US-20200313816), Damnjanovic (US-20180227804).
As to claim 5. The one or more NTCRM of claim 3.
Yang may not explicitly teach wherein the code point of the SRS request field is to trigger. However Park teaches wherein the code point of the SRS request field is to trigger (claim 1 receiving, from the base station, the DCI triggering the aperiodic SRS in a first slot, wherein the DCI triggering the aperiodic SRS includes a field for triggering of a SRS resource set, wherein a specific code point is configured by the field, and wherein a specific SRS resource set associated with the specific code point based on the second information is triggered based on the specific code point).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement SRS codepoint, taught by Park, into the SRS resources, taught by Yang, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to configure SRS and estimate uplink channel quality. In addition it would have been obvious to combine Park and Yang in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Yang may not explicitly teach a … SRS resource set with different slot offsets. However, Sun teaches a … SRS resource set with different slot offsets (abstract sounding reference signal (SRS) transmissions in shared radio frequency spectrum, [0054, 132, 133, 140, 143] SRS slot offsets).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement SRS slot offsets, taught by Sun, into the SRS, taught by Yang, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to enable precise timing control. In addition it would have been obvious to combine Sun and Yang in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Yang may not explicitly teach common. However, Damnjanovic teaches common ([0023] and the reservation response signal can include a cell-specific sounding reference signal (SRS), which may be a common SRS for all primary UEs or within a subset of SRSs specific to the primary user's cell).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement common SRS, taught by Damnjanovic, into the SRS , taught by Yang, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to enable efficient uplink beam management. In addition it would have been obvious to combine Damnjanovic and Yang in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO-2020226395-A1), Xi (WO-2019195528-A1) in view of Damnjanovic (US-20180227804).
As to claim 6: Yang teaches the one or more NTCRM of claim 2.
Yang may not explicitly teach wherein the SRS configuration information includes an indication of multiple SRS resource sets configured for a … usage. However, Xi teaches wherein the SRS configuration information includes an indication of multiple SRS resource sets configured for a … usage ([0130, 131] A DCI filed, such as SRS request field, may be used to indicate which SRS set(s) is triggered).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement SRS set configuration, taught by Xi, into the LTE communication system, taught by Yang, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to enable uplink channel estimation. In addition it would have been obvious to combine Yang and Xi in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Yang may not explicitly teach common. However, Damnjanovic teaches common ([0023] and the reservation response signal can include a cell-specific sounding reference signal (SRS), which may be a common SRS for all primary UEs or within a subset of SRSs specific to the primary user's cell).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement common SRS, taught by Damnjanovic, into the SRS , taught by Yang, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to enable efficient uplink beam management. In addition it would have been obvious to combine Damnjanovic and Yang in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO-2020226395-A1), Xi (WO-2019195528-A1), Damnjanovic (US-20180227804) in view of Liou (US-10952231).
As to claim 7: Yang teaches the one or more NTCRM of claim 6.
Yang may not explicitly teach wherein the common usage includes: codebook based transmission, non-codebook based transmission, antenna switching, or beam management. However, Liou teaches wherein the common usage includes: codebook based transmission, non-codebook based transmission, antenna switching, or beam management (16:60-64 Support to use RRC signalling to explicitly differentiate between SRS resources sets for beam management and SRS resource set for codebook/non-codebook based UL transmission).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement codebook / non-codebook SRS, taught by Liou, into the SRS, taught by Yang, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to determine UL precoding dynamically or statically . In addition it would have been obvious to combine Liou and Yang in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 8, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO-2020226395-A1) in view of Xi (WO-2019195528-A1).
As to claim 8: Yang teaches the one or more NTCRM of claim 2.
Yang may not explicitly teach wherein the SRS configuration information is to identify an association between the SRS transmission and a plurality of TRPs. However, Xi teaches wherein the SRS configuration information is to identify an association between the SRS transmission and a plurality of TRPs (WTRU panels associated with one TRP or multiple TRPs, separate SRS fields are part of DCI signaling to independently indicate a beam used for PUSCH transmission for multi-TRP or multipanel transmission 2202).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement multi-TRP, taught by Xi, into the LTE communication system, taught by Yang, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to improve signal reliability and coverage. In addition it would have been obvious to combine Yang and Xi in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
As to claim 9: Yang teaches the one or more NTCRM of claim 2, wherein the SRS configuration information is to indicate an SRS resource in an SRS resource set associated with a scheduling TRP (In addition, the SRS resource (or SRS resource set) in which transmission is indicated through the multi-slot DCI overlaps in time with all of the specific PUSCH resources (or the DMRS symbol of the corresponding PUSCH) scheduled through the multi-slot DCI … As another method, when SRS transmission on an SRS resource set consisting of a plurality of (M) SRS symbols is indicated through the multi-slot DCI, a corresponding SRS (resource set) within a slot determined as a corresponding SRS transmission time point).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO-2020226395-A1), Xi (WO-2019195528-A1) in view of Liu (US-20200106646).
As to claim 10: Yang teaches the one or more NTCRM of claim 2.
Yang may not explicitly teach wherein to encode the SRS transmission for transmission based on the SRS configuration information includes to: determine there is no available uplink slot available for the SRS transmission; and postpone the SRS transmission until a next available uplink slot. However, Liu teaches wherein to encode the SRS transmission for transmission based on the SRS configuration information includes to: determine there is no available uplink slot available for the SRS transmission; and postpone the SRS transmission until a next available uplink slot ([0135] The method of any of Embodiments 1-21, further comprising determining the subframe with one or more symbols allocated by the A-SRS configuration for SRS transmission collide with the subframe for transmission of the UCI and in response to the determination, postponing SRS transmission until a subsequent subframe available for SRS).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement SRS collision recovery, taught by Liu, into the SRS, taught by Yang, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to ensure reliable uplink measurement. In addition it would have been obvious to combine Yang and Liu in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO-2020226395-A1), Xi (WO-2019195528-A1) in view of Liu (US-20200106646), Lee (CN-105659687-A).
As to claim 11: Yang teaches the one or more NTCRM of claim 2.
Yang may not explicitly teach wherein the SRS message is a first SRS message, and wherein the instructions, when executed, are further to configure the UE to: identify an SRS collision among multiple TRPs. However, Liu teaches wherein the SRS message is a first SRS message, and wherein the instructions, when executed, are further to configure the UE to: identify an SRS collision among multiple TRPs ([0135] The method of any of Embodiments 1-21, further comprising determining the subframe with one or more symbols allocated by the A-SRS configuration for SRS transmission collide with the subframe for transmission of the UCI and in response to the determination, postponing SRS transmission until a subsequent subframe available for SRS).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement SRS collision recovery, taught by Liu, into the SRS, taught by Yang, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to ensure reliable uplink measurement. In addition it would have been obvious to combine Yang and Liu in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Yang may not explicitly teach and encode one of a plurality of SRS messages for transmission based on a priority associated with the first SRS message. However, Lee teaches and encode one of a plurality of SRS messages for transmission based on a priority associated with the first SRS message (When a plurality of SRS (e.g. the same priority) can be scheduled, such as no other channels, priority (e.g., for which to be transmitted and which is discarded) can be based on node, based on configuration or can be determined by the WTRU).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement SRS priority, taught by Lee, into the SRS, taught by Yang, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to intelligently manage uplink resources. In addition it would have been obvious to combine Lee and Yang in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (WO-2020226395-A1), Xi (WO-2019195528-A1), Liu (US-20200106646), Lee (CN-105659687-A) in view of Park (US-20200403749).
As to claim 12: Yang teaches the one or more NTCRM of claim 11.
Yang, Lee may not explicitly teach wherein the priority is based on: an identifier of a TRP associated with the first SRS message, an SRS resource identifier associated with the first SRS message, a usage type associated with the first SRS message, a timestamp associated with the first SRS message, or an ordering of the first SRS message relative to the plurality of SRS messages. However, Park teaches wherein the priority is based on: an identifier of a TRP associated with the first SRS message, an SRS resource identifier associated with the first SRS message, a usage type associated with the first SRS message, a timestamp associated with the first SRS message, or an ordering of the first SRS message relative to the plurality of SRS messages (abstract).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement usage type information, taught by Park, into the SRS priority, taught by Lee, in order to implement a well-known feature of a pre-defined protocol and to intelligently manage uplink resources. In addition it would have been obvious to combine Park and Lee in a known manner to obtain predictable results as the combination would not change the essence, quiddity, or functionality of the prior art references.
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 ANDREW CHUNG SUK OH whose telephone number is (571)270-5273. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12p-8p.
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, Faruk Hamza can be reached at 5712727969. 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.
/ANDREW C OH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2466