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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02 February 2024 was filed after the mailing date of the patent application on 02 February 2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings, received on 02 February 2024, are acceptable for examination.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 16, 20, 24, and 28 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “for physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH)”. Here, the singular recitation would require the indefinite article of “a” prior to the recitation. However, Examiner believes that Applicant intended the plural recitation. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “for a physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH)” if the singular form of PUSCH was intended or amending to “for physical uplink shared channels (PUSCHs)” if the plural form of PUSCH was intended. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 20 and 28 objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “the configuration information” however, said claims also recite “higher-layer configuration information”. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests amending to “the higher-layer configuration information”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 19, 23, 27, and 31 are objected to because of the following informalities: Said claims recite “a length of TDW”. Here, the corresponding independent claims have previously recited “at least one TDW”. In order to improve claim clarity, Examiner respectfully suggests that Applicant determine if “TDW” is intended to be the same as “at least one TDW”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 (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 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)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 16, 20, 24, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Park et al. (US 20220029859 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Park”).
Regarding Claim 16, Claim 16 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 24.
Regarding Claim 20, Claim 20 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 28.
Regarding Claim 24, Park discloses a terminal in a wireless communication system, the terminal comprising:
a transceiver (¶196-212 & Fig. 12, Park discloses a user equipment (UE) comprising a transmitter 1220 and a receiver 1230); and
a controller (¶196-212 & Fig. 12, Park discloses the BS further comprising controller 1210) configured to:
determine, based on higher-layer configuration information received from a base station, a time window (TDW) resource determination mode for physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (¶142 & ¶144 & Fig. 10 (S1000), Park discloses determining, by the UE. information on joint channel estimation including information on whether to perform joint channel estimation for transmission on one or more uplink (UL) channels. ¶145, Park discloses that information on the joint channel estimation may be signaled to the UE via Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling. ¶143, Examiner correlates “a TDW resource determination mode” to a duration of time in which the UE performs joint channel estimation for uplink transmission on one or more uplink channels, such as the PUSCH or the PUCCH. Examiner correlates the information on joint channel estimation transmitted/received via Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling to “higher-layer configuration information”),
determine at least one TDW according to the TDW resource determination mode (¶142 & ¶144 & Fig. 11 (S1010), Park discloses determining, by the UE, a time duration for the joint channel estimation according to information on joint channel estimation. Examiner correlates a time duration for joint channel estimation to “at least one TDW”), and
transmit, to the base station via the transceiver, repeated PUSCHs (¶153 & Fig. 10 (S1020), Park discloses transmitting, by the UE to the BS, at least one UL channel within the time duration for joint channel estimation. ¶148-149, Park discloses that repetition transmission is configured for either a Physical Uplink Channel (PUSCH) or a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) transmission during joint channel estimation), maintaining power consistency and phase continuity based on the determined at least one TDW (¶153 & Fig. 10 (S1020) & ¶148-149 & ¶151, Park discloses that the transmission of the at least one PUSCH having repetition within the time duration for joint channel estimation maintains at least one of power consistency and phase continuity).
Regarding Claim 28, Park discloses a base station in a wireless communication system, the base station comprising:
a transceiver (¶213-233 & Fig. 13, Park discloses a base station (BS) comprising a transmitter 1320 and a receiver 1330); and
a controller (¶213-233 & Fig. 13, Park discloses the BS further comprising controller 1310) configured to:
determine a time domain window (TDW) resource determination mode for physical uplink shared channel (PUSCH) (¶161 & ¶159 & Fig. 11 (S1100), Park discloses determining, by the BS, information on joint channel estimation where the information on joint channel estimation includes at least (1) information whether to perform joint estimation for transmission on one or more uplink (UL) channels and (2) a time duration for joint channel estimation. ¶143, Examiner correlates a TDW resource determination mode to a duration of time in which the UE performs joint channel estimation for uplink transmission on one or more uplink channels, such as the PUSCH or the PUCCH, according to the received information on whether to perform joint estimation),
transmit, to a terminal via the transceiver, higher-layer configuration information generated based on the determination (¶159 & Fig. 11 (S1100) & ¶162-163, Park discloses transmitting, by the BS to the UE, the information on joint channel estimation. ¶162, Park discloses that information on the joint channel estimation may be signaled to the UE via Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling. Examiner correlates information on joint channel estimation transmitted/received via Radio Resource Control (RRC) signaling to “higher-layer configuration information”), and
receive, from the terminal via the transceiver, repeated PUSCHs (¶164 & Fig. 11 (S1110), Park discloses receiving, by the BS from the UE, at least one PUSCH within the time duration for joint channel estimation. ¶165-166, Park discloses that repetition transmission is configured for either a Physical Uplink Channel (PUSCH) or a Physical Uplink Control Channel (PUCCH) transmission during joint channel estimation) transmitted maintaining power consistency and phase continuity in at least one TDW according to the TDW resource determination mode (¶164 & Fig. 11 (S1110), Park discloses that the transmission of the at least one PUSCH having repetition within the time duration for joint channel estimation maintains at least one of power consistency and phase continuity) which is based on the configuration information (¶159 & ¶164 & Fig. 11 (S1100->S1110) & ¶162-163, Park discloses that the reception of one or more UL channels during the time duration for the joint channel estimation is based on receipt of the information on joint estimation transmitted via radio resource control (RRC) signaling).
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.
Claims 17, 21, 25, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Maso et al. (US 20230033400 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Maso”).
Regarding Claim 17, Claim 17 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 25.
Regarding Claim 21, Claim 21 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 29.
Regarding Claim 25, Park discloses the terminal of claim 24.
However, Park does not disclose wherein the at least one TDW is determined according to the TDW resource determination mode in which a start of a TDW of the at least one TDW is based on a start of a resource determined for PUSCH transmission after a resource determined for PUSCH transmission of a previous TDW.
Maso, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one TDW is determined according to the TDW resource determination mode in which a start of a TDW of the at least one TDW is based on a start of a resource determined for PUSCH transmission after a resource determined for PUSCH transmission of a previous TDW (¶123 & Fig. 8, Maso discloses that a second TDW is determined based upon a starting point of a slot for PUSCH transmission and after a resource/slot for PUSCH transmission of a previous TDW).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park by requiring the at least one TDW is determined according to the TDW resource determination mode in which a start of a TDW of the at least one TDW is based on a start of a resource determined for PUSCH transmission after a resource determined for PUSCH transmission of a previous TDW as taught by Maso because power consistency and phase continuity over a single TDW is improved by enabling the UE to maintain power consistency and phase continuity over several shorter durations (Maso, ¶89).
Regarding Claim 29, Park discloses the base station of claim 28.
However, Park does not disclose wherein the at least one TDW is determined according to the TDW resource determination mode in which a start of a TDW of the at least one TDW is based on a start of a resource determined for PUSCH transmission after a resource determined for PUSCH transmission of a previous TDW.
Maso, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one TDW is determined according to the TDW resource determination mode in which a start of a TDW of the at least one TDW is based on a start of a resource determined for PUSCH transmission after a resource determined for PUSCH transmission of a previous TDW (¶123 & Fig. 8, Maso discloses that a second TDW is determined based upon a starting point of a slot for PUSCH transmission and after a resource/slot for PUSCH transmission of a previous TDW).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park by requiring the at least one TDW is determined according to the TDW resource determination mode in which a start of a TDW of the at least one TDW is based on a start of a resource determined for PUSCH transmission after a resource determined for PUSCH transmission of a previous TDW as taught by Maso because power consistency and phase continuity over a single TDW is improved by enabling the UE to maintain power consistency and phase continuity over several shorter durations (Maso, ¶89).
Claims 18, 22, 26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Xiao et al. (US 20240187281 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Xiao”).
Regarding Claim 18, Claim 18 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 26.
Regarding Claim 22, Claim 22 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 30.
Regarding Claim 26, Park discloses the terminal of claim 24.
However, Park does not disclose wherein the at least one TDW is determined according to the TDW resource determination mode in which the at least one TDW is continuously determined over consecutive slots.
Xiao, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one TDW is determined according to the TDW resource determination mode in which the at least one TDW is continuously determined over consecutive slots (¶91 & ¶178, Xiao discloses that the time domain window is performed continuously every 4 consecutive slots).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park by requiring that the at least one TDW is determined according to the TDW resource determination mode in which the at least one TDW is continuously determined over consecutive slots as taught by Xiao because coverage enhancement/coverage recovery is improved by allowing the base station to instruct the terminal to maintain certain conditions with the TDW during joint channel estimation performed by the base station (Xiao, ¶51).
Regarding Claim 30, Park discloses the base station of claim 28.
However, Park does not disclose wherein the at least one TDW is determined according to the TDW resource determination mode in which the at least one TDW is continuously determined over consecutive slots.
Xiao, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the at least one TDW is determined according to the TDW resource determination mode in which the at least one TDW is continuously determined over consecutive slots (¶91 & ¶178, Xiao discloses that the time domain window is performed continuously every 4 consecutive slots).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park by requiring that the at least one TDW is determined according to the TDW resource determination mode in which the at least one TDW is continuously determined over consecutive slots as taught by Xiao because coverage enhancement/coverage recovery is improved by allowing the base station to instruct the terminal to maintain certain conditions with the TDW during joint channel estimation performed by the base station (Xiao, ¶51).
Claims 19, 23, 27, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park in view of Liu et al. (US 20240291689 A1; hereinafter referred to as “Liu”).
Regarding Claim 19, Claim 19 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 27.
Regarding Claim 23, Claim 23 is rejected on the same basis as Claim 31.
Regarding Claim 27, Park discloses the terminal of claim 24.
However, Park does not disclose wherein the controller is configured transmit, to the base station via the transceiver, capability information on a maximum duration, wherein the capability information indicates whether the terminal supports the maximum duration which the terminal is able to maintain the power consistency and the phase continuity, and wherein a length of TDW does not exceed the maximum duration.
Liu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is configured transmit, to the base station via the transceiver, capability information on a maximum duration (¶95-96 & Fig. 4 (303), Liu discloses receiving, from a terminal, a maximum duration length),
wherein the capability information indicates whether the terminal supports the maximum duration which the terminal is able to maintain the power consistency and the phase continuity (¶39, Liu discloses that the maximum duration length is a duration of time that the terminal device can maintain the power consistency and the phase continuity), and
wherein a length of TDW does not exceed the maximum duration (¶97 & Fig. 4 (304), Liu discloses that a nominal time domain window length is less than the maximum duration length).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park by requiring that the controller is configured transmit, to the base station via the transceiver, capability information on a maximum duration, wherein the capability information indicates whether the terminal supports the maximum duration which the terminal is able to maintain the power consistency and the phase continuity, and wherein a length of TDW does not exceed the maximum duration as taught by Liu because the ability of a terminal to maintain the power consistency and the phase consistency is improved by determining how to report the maximum duration length (Liu, ¶39).
Regarding Claim 31, Park discloses the base station of claim 28.
However, Park does not disclose wherein the controller is configured transmit, to the base station via the transceiver, capability information on a maximum duration, wherein the capability information indicates whether the terminal supports the maximum duration which the terminal is able to maintain the power consistency and the phase continuity, and wherein a length of TDW does not exceed the maximum duration.
Liu, a prior art reference in the same field of endeavor, teaches wherein the controller is configured transmit, to the base station via the transceiver, capability information on a maximum duration (¶95-96 & Fig. 4 (303), Liu discloses receiving, from a terminal, a maximum duration length),
wherein the capability information indicates whether the terminal supports the maximum duration which the terminal is able to maintain the power consistency and the phase continuity (¶39, Liu discloses that the maximum duration length is a duration of time that the terminal device can maintain the power consistency and the phase continuity), and
wherein a length of TDW does not exceed the maximum duration (¶97 & Fig. 4 (304), Liu discloses that a nominal time domain window length is less than the maximum duration length).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the invention to modify Park by requiring that the controller is configured transmit, to the base station via the transceiver, capability information on a maximum duration, wherein the capability information indicates whether the terminal supports the maximum duration which the terminal is able to maintain the power consistency and the phase continuity, and wherein a length of TDW does not exceed the maximum duration as taught by Liu because the ability of a terminal to maintain the power consistency and the phase consistency is improved by determining how to report the maximum duration length (Liu, ¶39).
Internet Communications
Applicant is encouraged to submit a written authorization for Internet communications (PTO/SB/439, http://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/sb0439.pdf) in the instant patent application to authorize the examiner to communicate with the applicant via email. The authorization will allow the examiner to better practice compact prosecution. The written authorization can be submitted via one of the following methods only: (1) Central Fax which can be found in the Conclusion section of this Office action; (2) regular postal mail; (3) EFS WEB; or (4) the service window on the Alexandria campus. EFS web is the recommended way to submit the form since this allows the form to be entered into the file wrapper within the same day (system dependent). Written authorization submitted via other methods, such as direct fax to the examiner or email, will not be accepted. See MPEP § 502.03.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC NOWLIN whose telephone number is (313)446-6544. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 12:00PM-10:00PM.
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, Michael Thier can be reached at (571) 272-2832. 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.
/ERIC NOWLIN/Examiner, Art Unit 2474