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 .
Applicant’s amendment filed 4/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-15 are amended.
Claims 16-20 are newly added.
Abstract is amended.
Response to Amendment
Amendments filed on 4/17/2026 are entered for prosecution. Claims 1-20 remain pending in the application.
Applicant’s amendment to the abstract has overcome the objection to abstract previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed on 1/20/2026.
Applicant’s amendments to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12, 14, and 15 have overcome the objections to claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7-12, 14, and 15 previously set forth in the Non-Final Action mailed on 1/20/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claims 1, 11, and 15 (pages 9-13) in a reply filed 4/17/2026 have been considered but are moot because the arguments are based on newly changed limitations in the amendment and new ground of rejections using newly introduced references or a newly introduced portion of an existing reference are applied in the current rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected because of the following informalities:
In claim 19, it is suggested to amend to read “… an orthogonal frequency …” in line 2 for correction of a typographical error.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 6-8 and 18-20 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claims 6 and 18:
Claims 6 and claim 18 each recite the limitation “the RS resource is associated with a first and a second waveform type and corresponding RS structures” and render the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether each waveform type has a separate corresponding RS structure or whether both waveform types share the same RS structures. Additionally, the recitation “the RS resource transmitted a first time using the first waveform type and transmitted a second time using the second waveform type” lacks a verb (e.g., “is transmitted”), rendering the scope of the claim unclear. Accordingly, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty.
Regarding claims 7, 8, 19, and 20:
Claims 7, 8, 19, and 20 are also rejected because they are directly or indirectly dependent upon the rejected claim, as set forth above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 11-13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura et al. (EP 3627880 A1, hereinafter Kimura).
Regarding claim 1:
Kimura teaches a user equipment (UE) (see, Kimura: Fig. 6, Terminal Apparatus 200; Fig. 28 and Para. [0243], Smart Phone 900), comprising: at least one memory (see, Kimura: Fig. 28 and Para. [0243], Memory 902); and at least one processor (see, Kimura: Fig. 28 and Para. [0243], Processor 901) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the UE to:
receive a first signaling information from a network (see, Kimura: para. [0140], “the base station 100 notifies the terminal apparatus 200 of the first communication parameter set (that is, transmits the first communication parameter set to the terminal apparatus 200) to set the first communication parameter set to the terminal apparatus 200”), the first signaling information configuring a reference signal (RS) resource with an association to at least one waveform, wherein the association designates the RS resource for performing measurements with respect to the at least one waveform (see, Kimura: para. [0143], “the base station 100 transmits the reference signal to the terminal apparatus 200 (Step S104). The reference signal is, for example, the CSI-RS. The base station 100 transmits the CSI-RS to the terminal apparatus 200 using the first communication parameter set.”; para. [0124], Table 3. Example of communication parameter candidates contained in first communication parameter set, “Waveform: OFDM, DFT-S-OFDM, GFDMA”, “Frequency range: …, Specific RBs”; para. [0125], “the first communication parameter set contains a waveform and physical layer parameters.”);
receive a second signaling information from the network, the second signaling information indicating a reporting configuration for performing measurements on the RS resource (see, Kimura: para. [0153], “The base station 100 sets a communication parameter set used in the measurement report process to the terminal apparatus 200. ..., the communication parameter set used in the measurement report process may be interpreted as the communication parameter set used in the report (that is, feedback).”; para. [0155], “The communication parameter set used in the measurement report process will be also referred to as "second communication parameter set."”; para. [0156], “The second communication parameter set contains a waveform and physical layer parameters similarly to the first communication parameter set.”; para. [0199], “Resources for use in reporting the measurement report by the terminal apparatus 200 may be set by the base station 100.”) using the at least one waveform designated by the association (see, Kimura: Table 4 and para. [0212], “the waveform of the reference signal may be associated with a waveform to be assumed in the measurement report process.”);
generate a measurement report according to the reporting configuration (see, Kimura: para. [0144], “The terminal apparatus 200 then performs measurement on the basis of the reference signal received from the base station 100 (Step S106). At this time, the terminal apparatus 200 performs the measurement on the assumption that the second communication parameter set is used for transmission of the CSI-RS.”); and
transmit the measurement report to the network (see, Kimura: para. [0145], “the terminal apparatus 200 reports the information indicating the measurement result (measurement report) to the base station 100 (Step S108).”).
Regarding claim 2:
As discussed above, Kimura teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Kimura further teaches wherein the RS resource is a channel state information reference signal (CSI-RS), sounding reference signal (SRS), demodulation reference signal (DMRS) or synchronization signal block reference signal (SSB-RS) (see, Kimura: para. [0137], “The reference signal may be, for example, a CSI-RS (Channel State Information Reference Signal).”; para. [0269], “the reference signal may be, for example, an SRS (Sounding Reference Signal).”).
Regarding claim 3:
As discussed above, Kimura teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Kimura further teaches wherein at least two RS resources are configured for the UE, a first RS resource associated with a first waveform and designated for performing measurements with respect to the first waveform and a second resource associated with a second waveform and designated for performing measurements with respect to the second waveform (see, Kimura: para. [0169], “In a case of assuming a plurality of waveforms, the terminal apparatus 200 performs measurement for each of the assumed waveforms.”), and wherein the reporting configuration directs measurements on each RS resource using the waveform designated by the association of that RS resource (see, Kimura: para. [0212], “the measurement report process on the assumption of a plurality of waveforms can be performed on the basis of the reference signal modulated by a certain waveform. At that time, the waveform of the reference signal may be associated with a waveform to be assumed in the measurement report process. Furthermore, the reference signal may be transmitted in different resources fixedly set to waveforms used for modulation of the reference signal, or may be transmitted in a resource common to the different waveforms.”).
Regarding claim 11:
Claim 11 is directed towards method of a user equipment (UE) apparatus, comprising: the same steps described in claim 1. Therefore, claim 11 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 12:
Claim 12 is directed towards the method of claim 11 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 2. Therefore, claim 12 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 2 above.
Regarding claim 13:
Claim 13 is directed towards the method of claim 11 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 3. Therefore, claim 13 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 3 above.
Regarding claim 15:
Claim 15 is directed towards a network entity apparatus (see, Kimura: Fig. 26 and Para. [0224], Base Station Apparatus 820), comprising: at least one memory (see, Kimura: Fig. 26 and Para. [0226], Memory 822); and at least one processor (see, Kimura: Fig. 26 and Para. [0226], Controller 821) coupled with the at least one memory and configured to cause the NE to: perform similar features to claim 1 from the perspective of the network entity apparatus. Therefore, claim 15 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 16:
Claim 16 is directed towards method performed by a network equipment (NE) (see, Kimura: Fig. 26 and Para. [0224], Base Station Apparatus 820), comprising: the same steps described in claim 15. Therefore, claim 16 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 15 above.
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.
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.
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 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.
Claims 4, 5, 14, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura.
Regarding claim 4:
As discussed above, Kimura teaches all limitations in claim 3.
Kimura further teaches wherein the first waveform is a single carrier waveform and the second waveform is an orthogonal frequency division multiplexing (OFDM)-based multi-carrier waveform (see, Kimura: Table 3; Table 5; and para. [0169], “In a case of assuming a plurality of waveforms, the terminal apparatus 200 performs measurement for each of the assumed waveforms.”).
Kimura teaches that the transmitted signal may employ various waveform types, including single-carrier and OFDM-based waveforms. Selecting one disclosed waveform for a first transmission and another disclosed waveform for a second transmission would have been an obvious design choice involving the selection of known alternatives to obtain their expected results (see, Kimura: para. [0172], “The terminal apparatus 200 may perform measurement on the basis of whether or not the waveform has a feature of a single carrier waveform.” and Table 5 wherein single carrier waveform (e.g., SC-FDMA) and waveform without feature of single carrier waveform (e.g., OFDMA) are used for measurements.).
Regarding claim 5:
As discussed above, Kimura teaches all limitations in claim 3.
Kimura further teaches wherein the processor is configured to cause the UE to perform measurements on the at least two RS resources associated with at least two different waveforms and transmit the measurement report to the network (see, Kimura: para. [0169], “In a case of assuming a plurality of waveforms, the terminal apparatus 200 performs measurement for each of the assumed waveforms.”; para. [0212], “the measurement report process on the assumption of a plurality of waveforms can be performed on the basis of the reference signal modulated by a certain waveform.”), the measurement report indicating at least one of two waveforms and corresponding measurements including reference signal received power (RSRP), channel quality indicator (CQI), rank indicator (RI), layer indicator (LI), precoding matrix indicator (PMI), or some combination thereof (see, Kimura: para. [0197], “The information indicating the measurement result includes, for example, at least any of the CQI, the RI, the PMI, the CPI, or the WI.”; para. [0198], “It is desirable herein that the information indicating the measurement result includes at least information indicating the waveform (that is, WI) used in the measurement report process.”).
Regarding claim 14:
Claim 14 is directed towards the method of claim 13 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 4. Therefore, claim 14 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 4 above.
Regarding claim 17:
Claim 17 is directed towards the method of claim 13 that is further limited to perform the features of claim 5. Therefore, claim 17 is rejected by applying the similar rationale used to reject claim 5 above.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura in view of Iyer et al. (US 2021/0176765 A1, hereinafter Iyer).
Regarding claim 9:
As discussed above, Kimura teaches all limitations in claim 1.
Kimura does not explicitly teach wherein the first signaling information is a semi-static radio resource control (RRC) configuration.
In the same field of endeavor, Iyer teaches wherein the first signaling information is a semi-static radio resource control (RRC) configuration (see, Iyer: para. [02134], “If a UE is required to blindly decode the NR-DCI across the entire bandwidth it will experience significant latency and battery drain. As a result, NR must allow transmission of the NR-DCI to a UE in specific subbands. The UE must be configured to have knowledge of the resources of these subbands.”; para. [0215], “The subbands may be configured semi-statically through RRC and MAC CE updates.”; para. [0231], “The resource assignment of DM-RS can be either dynamic or semi-static. Dynamic signaling can be done through DCI. … When semi-static signaling is used, RRC or MAC CE updates will indicate the DM-RS configurations.”).
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the teachings of Kimura in combination of the teachings of Iyer in order to configure a UE with specific subbands semi-statically through RRC (see, Iyer: para. [0215]).
Regarding claim 10:
As discussed above, Kimura in view of Iyer teaches all limitations in claim 9.
Iyer further teaches wherein the processor is configured to cause the UE to receive an indication of dynamic signaling information to update the waveform associated with the RS resource, wherein the updated waveform is different from the first waveform indicated by the first signaling information (see, Iyer: para. [0054], “The application is also directed to mechanisms for control channel designs including techniques to assign resources for NR-DCI and waveforms for UL signaling. Mechanisms to aid control channel estimation and allocation of UL and DL resources within sub-bands can limit the computational burden on the UE.”), the dynamic signaling information comprising a medium access control control element (MAC CE), downlink control information (DCI), or a combination thereof (see, Iyer: para. [0221], “it is envisaged that the waveform (CP-OFDM or DFT-S-OFDM) is assigned to a UE by the network. Here, the NR-Node makes the decision for the UE on which waveform to use. NR-Node can decide the waveform for the UE based on feedback from UE (such as beam or cell measurements or CQI) or from SRS or other RS on the UL. The configuration of the waveform may be done in the following ways:”; para. [0222], “1. Dynamically through DL-control signaling (DCI/PDCCH) (DCI may support multiple formats which may explicitly indicate the waveform or the DCI may have to be blindly decoded for either possibility of the waveform); and”; para. [0223], “2. Semi-static through RRC and MAC CE”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6-8 and 18-20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112(pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JI-HAE YEA whose telephone number is (571) 270-3310. The examiner can normally be reached on MON-FRI, 7am-3pm, ET.
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, SUJOY K KUNDU can be reached on (571) 272-8586. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
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 https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JI-HAE YEA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2471
Prosecution Insights