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 with respect to claims 38-41, 43, 45-48, 50-54 and 56-58 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 51 and 58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 51 and 58 recite the limitation "the at least two O-RUs” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 51 recites a method performed by one O-RU. Claim 58 recites an O-RU which messages with O-DU. Neither claims recites limitation such as “O-DU being operatively connected to at least two radio units Open Radio Access Network Radio Units (O-RUs)” as recited in claims 31 and 57. Therefore, there is insufficient antecedent basis for “the at least two O-RUs” recited in Claims 51 and 58.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the 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.
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.
Claims 38-39, 41, 50-51, 53-54, 57-58 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratsuka; Daisuke et al. US PGPUB 20220408390 A1, in view of Park; Jung-Kun US PGPUB 20150195723 A1, further in view of Ahmed; Wessam Afifi et al. US PGPUB 20210385686 A1.
Regarding claim 38. Hiratsuka teaches A method for managing uplink transmission of user data, the method being performed by an Open Radio Access Network Digital Unit (O-DU), the O-DU being operatively connected to at least two Open Radio Access Network Radio Units (O-RUs), ([0044] In the case of FIG. 3B, the FHM 130 combines the two FI-1 signals from the respective O-RUs 120 (pre-stage devices) and then transmits the combined signal to the O-DU 110.) the method comprising:
sending a scheduler request for uplink user data to the at least two O-RUs, ([0073] The parameter notification unit 117 notifies the intermediate device 130 of at least a portion of the parameters decided by the parameter control unit 115. [0074] Specifically, the parameter notification unit 117 can transmit the capability information set for the intermediate device 130 to the intermediate device 130.
See [0046] In addition, in the following description, the FHM 130 and the O-RU 130A are collectively referred to as the intermediate device 130.)
the scheduler request comprising a control message comprising parameters pertaining to transmission of uplink user data from the at least two O-RUs to the O-DU, ([0131] In the present embodiment, the O-DU 110 can decide capability information set for the intermediate device 130 based on at least the above-described processing time information and the capability information of the pre-stage device (O-RU 120) provided on the fronthaul. For this reason, in a case where the shared cell configuration is applied, it is possible to set more appropriate sizes of the transmission window and the reception window.)
wherein the parameters specify what uplink data the O-RUs shall forward to the O-DU, ([0131] In the present embodiment, the O-DU 110 can decide capability information set for the intermediate device 130 based on at least the above-described processing time information and the capability information of the pre-stage device (O-RU 120) provided on the fronthaul. For this reason, in a case where the shared cell configuration is applied, it is possible to set more appropriate sizes of the transmission window and the reception window.)
receiving uplink user data from the at least two O-RUs in accordance with the parameters. ([0081] Specifically, the parameter setting unit 137 sets the sizes of the transmission window and the reception window for the FH signal applied to the intermediate device 130 based on the capability information (corresponding to Ta3_min and/or Ta3_max) decided based on the processing time information indicating the processing time in the intermediate device 130.)
Hiratsuka does not teach
sending a request to the at least two O-RUs
receive uplink user data from the at least two O-RUs
wherein the parameters specify a transmission window per each of the at least two O-RUs for the transmission of uplink user data to the O-DU, and
wherein the parameters specify what uplink data the O-RUs shall forward to the O-DU, and wherein the parameters specify: a start of the transmission window per each of the at least two O-RUs for transmission of the uplink user data to the O-DU, and a size of the transmission window per each of the at least two O-RUs for transmission of the uplink user data to the O-DU; and
However, Park teaches
sending a request to the at least two O-RUs ([0054] In step 603, the redundancy apparatus duplicates the transmit signal of the normally operating neighbor base transceiver DU.)
receive uplink user data from the at least two O-RUs ([0058] In step 703, the redundancy apparatus receives the data channels, e.g., I/Q signals, of the RU of the selected base transceiver, and the RU previously linked to the failed DU.)
in order to improve system reliability by introducing redundancy scheme between Dus and Rus.
Hiratsuka and Park are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Hiratsuka with the technique of redundancy in Park in order to improve system reliability.
Hiratsuka and Park do not teach
wherein the parameters specify a transmission window per each of the at least two O-RUs for the transmission of uplink user data to the O-DU, and
wherein the parameters specify: a start of the transmission window per each of the at least two O-RUs for transmission of the uplink user data to the O-DU, and a size of the transmission window per each of the at least two O-RUs for transmission of the uplink user data to the O-DU; and
However, Ahmed teaches
wherein the parameters specify a transmission window per each of the at least two O-RUs for the transmission of uplink user data to the O-DU, ([0342] O-RU controller 125 configures O-RU 105, via an M-plane interface, with a window size from the supported set of window sizes, and a window offset from the supported window offsets, for U-plane traffic and/or C-plane traffic.) and
and wherein the parameters specify: a start of the transmission window per each of the at least two O-RUs for transmission of the uplink user data to the O-DU, ([0300] Thus, O-DU 115 sends to O-RU 105, a control-plane message that contains a section extension that defines a timing configuration, and O-RU 105 sends to O-DU 115, user-plane traffic in a specific time window based on the timing configuration. The timing configuration includes a parameter such as a transmission window size, and/or a transmission window delay offset.) and
a size of the transmission window per each of the at least two O-RUs for transmission of the uplink user data to the O-DU; ([0300] Thus, O-DU 115 sends to O-RU 105, a control-plane message that contains a section extension that defines a timing configuration, and O-RU 105 sends to O-DU 115, user-plane traffic in a specific time window based on the timing configuration. The timing configuration includes a parameter such as a transmission window size, and/or a transmission window delay offset.)
in order to avoid interference by compensate for SRS and UL data delay with delay management profile between O-DU and O-Rus. ([0033] the channel gains between the UEs and the gNB are no longer reflected accurately by the SRS signals, since UEs are moving fast in such a scenario, which causes interference and hence throughput degradation during the combining process in the UL chain.)
Hiratsuka and Ahmed are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Hiratsuka with the technique of delay profile in fronthaul network in order to avoid interference caused by SRS/UL data delays.
Regarding claim 39, Hiratsuka and Park and Ahmed teach The method according to claim 38, Hiratsuka and Ahmed do not teach comprising the further step of: determining the amount and type of data to request from each O-RU in said control message.
However, Park teaches determining the amount and type of data to request from each O-RU in said control message. (see Fig. 6 and 7, esp. [0058] In step 703, the redundancy apparatus receives the data channels, e.g., I/Q signals, of the RU of the selected base transceiver, and the RU previously linked to the failed DU. [0059] In step 705, the redundancy apparatus combines the received data channel I/Q signals, e.g., as described with reference to FIG. 3 above. [0060] In step 707, the redundancy apparatus provides the combined signal to the selected base transceiver DU.)
in order to improve system reliability by introducing redundancy scheme between Dus and Rus.
Hiratsuka and Park are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Hiratsuka with the technique of redundancy in Park in order to improve system reliability.
Regarding claim 41. Hiratsuka and Park and Ahmed teach The method according to claim 38, and Hiratsuka teaches wherein the parameters specify at least partly overlapping transmission windows for the at least two O-RUs for the transmission of uplink user data to the O-DU. (Fig. 12, transmit window TA3_max for O-RU(1-3) are partially overlapping).
Regarding claim 50. Hiratsuka and Park and Ahmed teach The method according to claim 38, and Hiratsuka teaches wherein the O-DU is operatively connected to the at least two O-RUs over a fronthaul network. (Fig. 3A-3C)
Regarding claim 51. Hiratsuka teaches A method for managing uplink transmission of user data, the method being performed by an Open Radio Access Network Digital Unit (O-RU), the O-RU being operatively connected to at least two Open Radio Access Network Radio Units (O-DU), ([0044] In the case of FIG. 3B, the FHM 130 combines the two FI-1 signals from the respective O-RUs 120 (pre-stage devices) and then transmits the combined signal to the O-DU 110.) the method comprising:
the method comprising: receiving a scheduler request for uplink user data from the O-DU, ([0073] The parameter notification unit 117 notifies the intermediate device 130 of at least a portion of the parameters decided by the parameter control unit 115. [0074] Specifically, the parameter notification unit 117 can transmit the capability information set for the intermediate device 130 to the intermediate device 130.
See [0046] In addition, in the following description, the FHM 130 and the O-RU 130A are collectively referred to as the intermediate device 130.)
the scheduler request comprising a control message comprising parameters pertaining to transmission of uplink user data from the O-RU to the O-DU, ([0131] In the present embodiment, the O-DU 110 can decide capability information set for the intermediate device 130 based on at least the above-described processing time information and the capability information of the pre-stage device (O-RU 120) provided on the fronthaul. For this reason, in a case where the shared cell configuration is applied, it is possible to set more appropriate sizes of the transmission window and the reception window.)
wherein the parameters specify what uplink data each O-RU shall forward to the O-RU; ([0131] In the present embodiment, the O-DU 110 can decide capability information set for the intermediate device 130 based on at least the above-described processing time information and the capability information of the pre-stage device (O-RU 120) provided on the fronthaul. For this reason, in a case where the shared cell configuration is applied, it is possible to set more appropriate sizes of the transmission window and the reception window.)
and sending uplink user data to the O-DU in accordance with the parameters, ([0081] Specifically, the parameter setting unit 137 sets the sizes of the transmission window and the reception window for the FH signal applied to the intermediate device 130 based on the capability information (corresponding to Ta3_min and/or Ta3_max) decided based on the processing time information indicating the processing time in the intermediate device 130.)
Hiratsuka does not teach
wherein the parameters specify a transmission window for the O-RU for the transmission of uplink user data to the O-DU, and wherein the parameters specify a size of the transmission window per each of the at least two O-RUs for transmission of the uplink user data to the O-DU
However, Ahmed teaches
wherein the parameters specify a transmission window for the O-RU for the transmission of uplink user data to the O-DU, , ([0342] O-RU controller 125 configures O-RU 105, via an M-plane interface, with a window size from the supported set of window sizes, and a window offset from the supported window offsets, for U-plane traffic and/or C-plane traffic.)
wherein the parameters specify a size of the transmission window per each of the at least two O-RUs for transmission of the uplink user data to the O-DU (([0300] Thus, O-DU 115 sends to O-RU 105, a control-plane message that contains a section extension that defines a timing configuration, and O-RU 105 sends to O-DU 115, user-plane traffic in a specific time window based on the timing configuration. The timing configuration includes a parameter such as a transmission window size, and/or a transmission window delay offset.))
in order to avoid interference by compensate for SRS and UL data delay with delay management profile between O-DU and O-Rus. ([0033] the channel gains between the UEs and the gNB are no longer reflected accurately by the SRS signals, since UEs are moving fast in such a scenario, which causes interference and hence throughput degradation during the combining process in the UL chain.)
Hiratsuka and Ahmed are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Hiratsuka with the technique of delay profile in fronthaul network in order to avoid interference caused by SRS/UL data delays.
Hiratsuka and Ahmed do not teach
the at least two O-RUs
However, Park teaches
the at least two O-RUs ([0058] In step 703, the redundancy apparatus receives the data channels, e.g., I/Q signals, of the RU of the selected base transceiver, and the RU previously linked to the failed DU.)
in order to improve system reliability by introducing redundancy scheme between Dus and Rus.
Hiratsuka and Park are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Hiratsuka with the technique of redundancy in Park in order to improve system reliability.
Regarding claim 53. Hiratsuka and Park and Ahmed teach The method according to claim 51, Hiratsuka teaches wherein the transmission window is shared with at least one other O-RU operatively connected to the O-DU. (Fig. 3A-3C)
Regarding claim 54. Hiratsuka and Park and Ahmed teach The method according to claim 51, but it does not teach wherein the parameters specify start of the transmission window for the O-RU.
However, Ahmed teaches wherein the parameters specify start of the transmission window for the O-RU. ([0300] Thus, O-DU 115 sends to O-RU 105, a control-plane message that contains a section extension that defines a timing configuration, and O-RU 105 sends to O-DU 115, user-plane traffic in a specific time window based on the timing configuration. The timing configuration includes a parameter such as a transmission window size, and/or a transmission window delay offset.)
in order to avoid interference by compensate for SRS and UL data delay with delay management profile between O-DU and O-Rus. ([0033] the channel gains between the UEs and the gNB are no longer reflected accurately by the SRS signals, since UEs are moving fast in such a scenario, which causes interference and hence throughput degradation during the combining process in the UL chain.)
Hiratsuka and Ahmed are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Hiratsuka with the technique of delay profile in fronthaul network in order to avoid interference caused by SRS/UL data delays.
Regarding claim 57. Hiratsuka and Park and Ahmed teach An Open Radio Access Network Digital Unit (O-DU) for managing uplink transmission of user data, the O-DU being operatively connected to at least two Open Radio Access Network Radio Units (O-Rus) (Hiratsuka Fig. 3A-3C) and comprising processing circuitry, (Hiratsuka Fig. 5) the processing circuitry being configured to cause the O-DU to perform the method in claim 38. It is rejected for the same reasons above.
Regarding claim 58. Hiratsuka and Park and Ahmed teach An Open Radio Access Network Radio Unit (O-RU) for uplink transmission of user data, the O-RU being operatively connected to an Open Radio Access Network Digital Unit (O-DU) (Hiratsuka Fig. 3A-3C) and comprising processing circuitry, (Hiratsuka Fig. 5) the processing circuitry being configured to cause the O-RU to perform the method in claim 51. It is rejected for the same reasons above.
Claims 40, 48 and 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratsuka and Park and Ahmed as applied to claim 38 above, further in view of THELEN; Christian Oliver et al. US PGPUB 20220095160 A1.
Regarding claim 40. Hiratsuka and Park and Ahmed teach The method according to claim 38, but they don’t teach wherein the parameters specify a respective unique non-overlapping transmission window for each of the at least two O-RUs for the transmission of uplink user data to the O-DU.
However, Thelen teaches wherein the parameters specify a respective unique non-overlapping transmission window for each of the at least two O-RUs for the transmission of uplink user data to the O-DU. ([0099] lar property, such as beamforming weights, for example In this example, the various sections are non-overlapping and a section is created for a group of symbols/RBs that have a same pattern (e.g., 704-1, 704-2, and 704-3 have a same pattern, and 706-1 and 706-2 share another pattern).)
In order to optimize handling or indication of high priority data sections in a communication system. ([0002])
Hiratsuka and Thelen are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Hiratsuka with the technique of indication of high priority data in Thelen in order to optimize handling or indication of high priority data sections in a communication system.
Regarding claim 48. Hiratsuka, Park, Ahmed and Wang teach The method according to claim 47, but Hiratsuka and Park and Ahmed do not teach wherein the type of transmission is indicated by a flag.
However, Thelen teaches
wherein the type of transmission is indicated by a flag. (Abstract: “The control message may be generated in a distributed unit (DU) and conveyed to a O-RU (RU) via a fronthaul link The control message may include either a flag or bits in a field of an extension data section allowing a RU to determine repeat of the highest priority data section based on reception of the flag or processing of the bit value in the field”)
In order to optimize handling or indication of high priority data sections in a communication system. ([0002])
Hiratsuka and Thelen are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Hiratsuka with the technique of indication of high priority data in Thelen in order to optimize handling or indication of high priority data sections in a communication system.
Regarding claim 52. Hiratsuka and Park and Ahmed teach The method according to claim 51, but they don’t teach wherein the transmission window is unique and non-overlapping with respect to transmission windows of any other O-RU operatively connected to the O-DU.
However, Thelen teaches wherein the parameters specify a respective unique non-overlapping transmission window for each of the at least two O-RUs for the transmission of uplink user data to the O-DU. (Figure 5 and [0099] particular property, such as beamforming weights, for example In this example, the various sections are non-overlapping and a section is created for a group of symbols/RBs that have a same pattern (e.g., 704-1, 704-2, and 704-3 have a same pattern, and 706-1 and 706-2 share another pattern).)
In order to optimize handling or indication of high priority data sections in a communication system. ([0002])
Hiratsuka and Thelen are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Hiratsuka with the technique of indication of high priority data in Thelen in order to optimize handling or indication of high priority data sections in a communication system.
Claims 43, 46 and 56 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratsuka and Park as applied to claim 38 and 51 above, and further in view of LOU; Chong et al. US PGPUB 20220022224 A1.
Regarding claim 43. Hiratsuka and Park and Ahmed teachesThe method according to claim 42, and they do not teach wherein the start of the transmission window is specified at a time resolution of one symbol.
However, Lou teaches wherein the start of the transmission window is specified at a time resolution of one symbol. ([0089[ For example, referring to FIG. 4A, a resource indicated by an uplink grant corresponding to a PUSCH includes a symbol 1 to a symbol 6 in time domain, and an overlapping time domain resource may include a symbol 5 and a symbol 6.
[0066] A manner in which the network device schedules an uplink resource based on an SR or random access may be understood as dynamic scheduling. Dynamic scheduling means that the network device indicates a resource by using physical layer signaling (for example, downlink control information (DCI)), for example, an uplink grant (uplink grant). )
In order to improve the communication efficiency by multiplexing PUCCH/SR and PUSCH.
Hiratsuka and Lou are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Hiratsuka with the technique of SR configuration in order to improve the communication efficiency.
Regarding claim 46. Hiratsuka and Park and Ahmed teach The method according to claim 38, but they do not teach wherein the parameters specify type of transmission in the transmission window per each of the at least two O-RUs.
However, Lou teaches wherein the parameters specify type of transmission in the transmission window per each of the at least two O-RUs. ([0064] In this way, when different service types of data are to be sent, the terminal device may send an SR based on an SR configuration corresponding to a logical channel used to carry data, so that the network device perceives a service type of the current to-be-sent data of the terminal device.)
In order to improve the communication efficiency by multiplexing PUCCH/SR and PUSCH.
Hiratsuka and Lou are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Hiratsuka with the technique of SR configuration in order to improve the communication efficiency.
Regarding claim 56. Hiratsuka and Park and Lee teach The method according to claim 51, but they don’t teach wherein the parameters specify type of transmission in the transmission window for the O-RU.
However, Lou teaches wherein the parameters specify type of transmission in the transmission window per each of the at least two O-RUs. ([0064] In this way, when different service types of data are to be sent, the terminal device may send an SR based on an SR configuration corresponding to a logical channel used to carry data, so that the network device perceives a service type of the current to-be-sent data of the terminal device.)
In order to improve the communication efficiency by multiplexing PUCCH/SR and PUSCH.
Hiratsuka and Lou are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Hiratsuka with the technique of SR configuration in order to improve the communication efficiency.
Claims 45 and 47 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiratsuka and Park and Ahmed as applied to claim 38 above, further in view of Wang; Renqiu et al. US PGPUB 20180054282 A1
Regarding claim 45. Hiratsuka and Park and Ahmed teach The method according to claim 38, but it does not teach wherein the size of the transmission window is specified at a time resolution of half a symbol.
However, Wang teaches
wherein the size of the transmission window is specified at a time resolution of half a symbol. ([0080] As indicated above, an uplink common burst symbol may include various types of information, such as an SRS, SR, feedback information, uplink data, or any combination thereof. In some cases, an uplink common burst transmission 210 may be split into two half-symbols, in which each split symbol has double tone spacing and a half cyclic prefix (CP) length. In such examples, the first half symbol may be used for SRS and SR, and the second half symbols may be used for feedback information and uplink data (e.g., physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) data).)
in order to enhance interference mitigation and increase the likelihood of successful reception of the uplink burst transmission ([0080])
Hiratsuka and Wang are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Hiratsuka with the technique of half-symbol allocation in Wang in order to enhance interference mitigation.
Regarding claim 47. Hiratsuka and Park and Ahmed teach The method according to claim 46, but it does not teach wherein the type of transmission indicates whether the uplink user data is to be evenly distributed over time within the transmission window or is to be sent in burst-mode within the transmission window.
However, Wang teaches wherein the type of transmission indicates whether the uplink user data is to be evenly distributed over time within the transmission window or is to be sent in burst-mode within the transmission window. ([0063] an uplink common burst symbol may be used at the end of a subframe to transmit various types of information, such as an SRS, a scheduling request (SR), HARQ acknowledgment/negative-acknowledgment (ACK/NACK) information, uplink data, or combinations thereof. The type of information to be provided in the uplink common burst symbol may be used, in some examples, to determine a waveform for the symbol.)
in order to enhance interference mitigation and increase the likelihood of successful reception of the uplink burst transmission ([0080])
Hiratsuka and Wang are analogous art in the same field of endeavor of wireless communication. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person with ordinary skill in the art to modify the method in Hiratsuka with the technique of half-symbol allocation in Wang in order to enhance interference mitigation.
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 ZHAOHUI YANG whose telephone number is (571)270-7527. The examiner can normally be reached 9 AM to 5 PM M-F.
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, Marcus Smith can be reached at 571 270-1096. 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.
/ZHAOHUI YANG/Examiner, Art Unit 2468
/John Pezzlo/
Primary Patent Examiner, AU 2465B
13 August 2026
Prosecution Insights