DETAILED ACTION
This office action is in reply communication filed on 09/10/2025.
Claims 1, 6, 11, 16, and 21-36 are pending.
Claims 2-5, 12-15, and 17-20 are cancelled.
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 Argument
Applicant’s arguments, see page 7, filled on 09/10/2025, with respect to Objection to the Claims of claims 1-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The Objection to the Claims has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-9, filled on 09/10/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C. §103 of claims 1, 2, 6-8, 11, 12, 16 and 18 have been fully considered but not persuasive.
Regarding claims 1, 13 and 18, applicant argues that “The Office concluded that one of ordinary skill would have predictably modified Wu '996 such that "any two of the M time-frequency resource elements are free from overlapping in a time domain," as allegedly disclosed by Wu '328, because "it would reduce the complexity of the blind detection, and can perform the coherent detection by using the reference signal sequence, thereby improving signal reliability." (see Office Action, p. 4).
No combination of the applied references, however, would have rendered claim 1 prima facie obvious for at least the following reasons.
Wu '996 fails to disclose "the M signals are in a one-to-one correspondence with the M time-frequency resource elements," as claimed. Wu '996 describes that M first-type radio signals can occupy same frequency domain resources and can be completely overlapping or partially overlapping (see Wu '996, paras. [0397]- [0400]).
Additionally, none of paragraphs [0138], [0261], [0302], [0324], [0530] of Wu '996 mention anything that can reasonably be considered to teach or suggest "the M signals are in a one- to-one correspondence with the M time-frequency resource elements." Wu '996 merely mentions in these paragraphs that the target time-frequency resource is one of the M time-frequency resources that is corresponding to a target radio signal. In fact, Wu '996 is completely silent about any "one-to-one" correspondence between anything discussed in Wu '996.
Wu '328 does not make up for the above-identified deficiencies in Wu '996. Wu '328 merely describes non-overlapping time domain resources in a different context and does not describe the claimed one-to-one correspondence.
As such, no combination of the applied references teaches or suggests "the M signals are in a one-to-one correspondence with the M time-frequency resource elements," as recited in claim 1.” on page 8-9.
In response to applicant’s argument, the examiner respectfully disagrees with the argument above.
According to Specification (PG PUB.: US 2023/0284187) paragraph [0088] below:
[0088] In this embodiment of this application, the M signals are in a one-to-one correspondence with the M time-frequency resource elements. In some embodiments, one of the M time-frequency resource elements is used to carry one of the M signals. One of the M signals may correspond to one sending occasion, and M sending occasions corresponding to the M signals may be M consecutive sending occasions.
And according to Wu '996 paragraph [0261] and [0322] below:
[0261] According to one aspect of the present disclosure, the above method is characterized in that: a target time-frequency resource belongs to a first time-frequency resource set, the target time-frequency resource is one of the M time-frequency resources that is corresponding to a target radio signal, and the target radio signal is one of the M first-type radio signals that is transmitted by the target antenna port group.
[0322] In one embodiment, the above base station device for wireless communication is characterized in that: the second transmitter module further transmits the M downlink signalings on the M time-frequency resources respectively, wherein the M downlink signalings include scheduling information of the M first-type radio signals respectively.
Wu’996 teaches a target time-frequency resource/(one of the M time-frequency resource elements) is in a one-to-one correspondence to a target radio signal/(one of the M first-type radio signals). That is, a transmission of the M downlink signalings on a consecutive/respective M time-frequency resources, wherein the M downlink signalings include scheduling information/ (sending occasions) of the M first-type radio signals respectively.
Accordingly, Wu’996 teaches the claimed one-to-one correspondence. Thus, Wu '328 does make up for the deficiencies in Wu '996; such that, the combined system of Wu '996 and Wu '328 disclose all aspects of claim invention of claim 1.
Argument of claim 6, 11, and 16, that features similar to those recited in claim 1, accordingly, the applied references Wu '996 and Wu '328 disclose in claim 1 are also discloses claim 6, 11, and 16.
Claim Objections
Claims 21-24 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claims 21-22 recited, “The method according to claim 1,…” in line 1. For clarity and descriptive, it is suggested to change to “The signal sending method according to claim 1,…”.
Claims 23-24 recited, “The method according to claim 6,…” in line 1. For clarity and descriptive, it is suggested to change to “The signal receiving method according to claim 6,…”.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 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) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived by the manner in which the invention was made.
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 1, 6, 11, 16, 28-30, and 34-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over WU et al. (US 2019/0115996) (referred as WU’s 996) in view of WU et al. (WO 2019/137328) (referred as WU’s 328).
Regarding claim 1, WU’s 996 discloses a signal sending method, comprising:
generating M signals [¶ 437; generating M signals/(M first-type radio signals)]; and
sending the M signals on M time-frequency resource elements [¶¶ 322, 421, 516; sending the M signals on M time-frequency resource elements],
wherein
the M signals are in a one-to-one correspondence with the M time-frequency resource elements [¶¶ 138, 261, 302, 322-324, 530; the M signals are in a one-to-one correspondence with the M time-frequency resource elements],
at least two of the M time-frequency resource elements “partially overlapping” in a frequency domain [¶ 576; at least two of the M time-frequency resource elements overlap in a frequency domain], and
M is an integer greater than 1 [¶¶ 241, 259, 472; M is an integer greater than 1].
WU’s 996 disclose all aspects of claim invention set forth above, but does not explicitly disclose any two of the M time-frequency resource elements are free from overlapping in a time domain.
However, WU’s 328 discloses
any two of the M time-frequency resource elements are free from overlapping in a time domain [page 19, lines 28-29; any two of the M time-frequency resource elements are free from overlapping in a time domain].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “any two of the M time-frequency resource elements are free from overlapping in a time domain” as taught by WU’s 328 in the system of WU’s 996, so that it would to reduce the complexity of the blind detection, and can perform the coherent detection by using the reference signal sequence, thereby improving the detection reliability [see WU’s 328; page 6, lines 3-5].
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites a signal receiving method to perform the signal sending method recited as in claim 1; therefore, claim 6 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 1.
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites a communication apparatus, comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory memory (Fig. 18, ¶ 760, a UE comprising a first transmitter module 1801 and a first receiver module 1802 having at least the controller/processor 459, the memory 460, ¶¶ 778-781) having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors to perform the signal sending method recited as in claim 1; therefore, claim 11 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 1.
Regarding claim 16, the claim recites a communication apparatus, comprising: one or more processors; and a non-transitory memory (Fig. 19, ¶ 782, a base station comprising a second receiver module 1901 and a second transmitter module 1902 having at least the controller/processor 475, the memory 476, ¶¶ 800-803) having instructions stored thereon that, when executed by the one or more processors to perform the signal sending method recited as in claim 1; therefore, claim 16 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 1.
Regarding claim 28, the combined system of WU’s 996 and WU’s 328 discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 11.
WU’s 996 further discloses wherein there is a time interval between any two of the M time-frequency resource elements that are adjacent in the time domain [¶¶ 615-617; wherein there is a time interval between any two of the M time-frequency resource elements that are adjacent in the time domain], and the time interval is a time required by a radio frequency transmission channel to perform radio frequency retuning [¶ 620; the time interval is a time required by a radio frequency transmission channel to perform radio frequency retuning].
Regarding claim 29, the combined system of WU’s 996 and WU’s 328 discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 11.
WU’s 996 further discloses wherein the at least two of the M time-frequency resource elements comprise a first time-frequency resource element and a second time-frequency resource element [¶ 635; wherein the at least two of the M time-frequency resource elements comprise a first time-frequency resource element and a second time-frequency resource element],
wherein the first time-frequency resource element and the second time-frequency resource element are adjacent in the time domain [¶ 616; wherein the first time-frequency resource element and the second time-frequency resource element are adjacent in the time domain].
Regarding claim 30, the combined system of WU’s 996 and WU’s 328 discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 11.
WU’s 996 wherein the at least two of the M time-frequency resource elements comprise a first time-frequency resource element and a second time-frequency resource element [¶ 635; wherein the at least two of the M time-frequency resource elements comprise a first time-frequency resource element and a second time-frequency resource element], the first time-frequency resource element corresponds to a first signal [¶¶ 298, 530, 635; a target time-frequency resource is one of the M time-frequency resources that is corresponding to the target radio signal], and the second time-frequency resource element corresponds to a second signal [¶¶ 301-302; the second time-frequency resource element corresponds to a second signal], wherein a sending occasion corresponding to the first signal and a sending occasion corresponding to the second signal are consecutive sending occasions [¶¶ 629, 769-770; receives a second signaling, wherein the second signaling includes scheduling information of the second radio signal].
Regarding claims 34-36, the claims recite the communication apparatus according to claim 16 to perform the communication apparatus recited as in claims 28-30, respectively; therefore, claims 34-36 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 28-30, respectively.
Claims 21-26, and 31-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over WU et al. (US 2019/0115996) (referred as WU’s 996) in view of WU et al. (WO 2019/137328) (referred as WU’s 328), and further in view of BERGGREN (US 2014/0211740).
Regarding claim 21, the combined system of WU’s 996 and WU’s 328 discloses the
method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the method is applied to a REDCAP terminal device, or a chip in a REDCAP terminal device; and a bandwidth occupied by the M signals is greater than a maximum bandwidth supported by the REDCAP terminal device.
However, BERGGREN discloses wherein the method is applied to a REDCAP terminal device, or a chip in a REDCAP terminal device [¶¶ 15, 18; wherein the method is applied to a UE/(REDCAP terminal device)]; and a bandwidth occupied by the M signals is greater than a maximum bandwidth supported by the REDCAP terminal device [¶¶ 91-95; a bandwidth occupied by the M signals is greater than a maximum bandwidth supported by the UE/(REDCAP terminal device)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the method is applied to a REDCAP terminal device, or a chip in a REDCAP terminal device; and a bandwidth occupied by the M signals is greater than a maximum bandwidth supported by the REDCAP terminal device” as taught by BERGGREN in the combined system of WU’s 996 and WU’s 328, so that it would to provide a non-backwards compatible Uplink Secondary Component Carrier (UL SCC), proper and efficient scheduling decisions are difficult to make, since the SRS transmission has been optimized for a backwards compatible UL SCC having a different configuration [see BERGGREN; ¶ 4].
Regarding claim 22, the combined system of WU’s 996 and WU’s 328 discloses the method according to claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the M signals are positioning sounding reference signals (SRSs).
However, BERGGREN discloses wherein the M signals are positioning sounding reference signals (SRSs) [¶¶ 75-75; table 2, wherein the M signals are positioning sounding reference signals (SRSs)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “wherein the M signals are positioning sounding reference signals (SRSs)” as taught by BERGGREN in the combined system of WU’s 996 and WU’s 328, so that it would to provide a non-backwards compatible Uplink Secondary Component Carrier (UL SCC), proper and efficient scheduling decisions are difficult to make, since the SRS transmission has been optimized for a backwards compatible UL SCC having a different configuration [see BERGGREN; ¶ 4].
Regarding claims 23-24, the claims recite the method according to claim 6 to perform the signal sending method recited as in claims 21-22; therefore, claims 23-24 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 21-22.
Regarding claims 25-26, the claims recite the communication apparatus according to claim 11 to perform the signal sending method recited as in claims 21-22; therefore, claims 25-26 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 21-22.
Regarding claims 31-32, the claims recite the communication apparatus according to claim 16 to perform the signal sending method recited as in claims 21-22; therefore, claims 31-32 are rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claims 21-22.
Claims 27 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over WU et al. (US 2019/0115996) (referred as WU’s 996) in view of WU et al. (WO 2019/137328) (referred as WU’s 328), and further in view of ZHANG (US 2023/0397203).
Regarding claim 27, the combined system of WU’s 996 and WU’s 328 discloses the communication apparatus according to claim 11.
WU’s 996 discloses wherein signals that are a part of the M signals and correspond to an overlapping parts of the at least two of the M time-frequency resource elements in the frequency domain [¶ 576; the second-type radio signal and any of the M first-type radio signals occupy partially overlapping frequency domain resources in frequency domain].
WU’s 996 and WU’s 328 does not explicitly disclose the at least two of the M time-frequency resource elements in the frequency domain are used to combine the M signals.
However, ZHANG discloses the at least two of the M time-frequency resource elements in the frequency domain are used to combine the M signals [¶ 124; a higher-layer signaling the M first offset(s) is(are) respectively configured to the M first type bit block(s), and combined with a physical layer signaling, the second offset is used to make adjustments to all of the M first offset(s)].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention was made to provide “the at least two of the M time-frequency resource elements in the frequency domain are used to combine the M signals” as taught by ZHANG in the combined system of WU’s 996 and WU’s 328, so that it would to ensure sufficiently high UCI transmission reliability by changing the offset between UCI transmission rate and MCS of uplink data [see ZHANG; ¶ 127].
Regarding claim 33, the claim recites communication apparatus according to claim 16 to perform the communication apparatus recited as in claim 27; therefore, claim 33 is rejected along the same rationale that rejected in claim 1.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 extension fee 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 PHONG LA whose telephone number is (571)272-2588. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 7:30 A.M. to 4:00 P.M. (EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IAN MOORE can be reached on 571-272-3085. 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/PHONG LA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2469