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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1and 11 are amended. Claims 1, 4-11 and 14-20 are pending.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
3. A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 5/3/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed on 5/3/2026 with respect to claims 1, 4-11 and 14-20, have been considered but are moot in view of new grounds of rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, 6-8, 10-11, 16-18 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0392526 A1) in view of Kim et al. (US. Pub. No. 2018/0145808 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Da silva discloses a dynamic adjustment method for reference signal (RS) reception (See Abstract and Par. [1]-[2] of Da Silva for a reference to a method, performed by the UE, for measuring channel quality based on received reference signal (RS)), comprising: detecting, by a processor of an apparatus, at least one channel condition to generate a detection result (See Par. [116]-[120], [152]-[154] of Da Silva for a reference to the UE performs periodic channel quality measurements to determine a channel hardening (CH) parameter [detecting the occurrence or absence of CH condition, or the level of CH]);
determining, by the processor, an RS reception scheduling based on the detection result (See Par. [104]-[105], [112]-[113] of Da Silva for a reference to that based on the detection of the presence or absence of the CH condition, the measurement parameters, including the reference signal used in the measurements, as well as the time and the bandwidth [Frequency] of receiving the RS, is determined); and performing, by the processor, an RS reception based on the RS reception scheduling to receive RSs from a network node(See Par. [131], [146]-[149] and Fig. 9 of Da Silva for a reference to that based on the detected CH condition, the CH parameters (time and frequency [schedule]) is adjusted, and the UE performs the RS reception from the network node using the adjusted parameters), wherein the method further comprises:
determining, by the processor, whether to adjust the RS reception scheduling based on a new detection result (See Par. [68], [106], [112]-[113], [120] of Da Silva for a reference to the UE determines to adjust the CH parameters, including time and BW of RS reception based on comparing the CH parameters with a new CH parameters estimate); performing, by the processor, the RS reception based on an adjusted RS reception scheduling (See Par. [112]-[113], [131], [146]-[149] and Fig. 9 of Da Silva for a reference to that based on the detected CH condition, the CH parameters (time and frequency [schedule]) is adjusted, and the UE performs the RS reception from the network node using the adjusted parameters);
Da Silva does not explicitly disclose decreasing, by the processor, a frequency number of times of receiving the RSs in the adjusted RS reception scheduling, in response to the new detection result being better than the detection result; and increasing, by the processor, the frequency number of times of receiving the RSs in the adjusted RS reception scheduling, in response to the new detection result being worse than the detection result.
However, Kim discloses decreasing, by the processor, a frequency number of times of receiving the RSs in the adjusted RS reception scheduling, in response to the new detection result being better than the detection result (See Par. [55]-[56] and Table 1 of Kim for a reference to that as the signal quality increases (i.e. a channel state becomes better), the repetition number of the uplink reference signal decreases [when the current channel state estimation is above the previous one, number of UL RS decreases (See Table 1)]); and increasing, by the processor, the frequency number of times of receiving the RSs in the adjusted RS reception scheduling, in response to the new detection result being worse than the detection result (See Par. [55]-[56] and Table 1 of Kim for a reference to that as the signal quality decreases (i.e. a channel state becomes worse), the repetition number of the uplink reference signal increases [when the current channel state estimation is below the previous one, number of UL RS increases (See Table 1)]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Kim to Da Silva. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by providing efficient channel estimation when operating a massive multiple-input multiple-output (MIMO) transceiver end. (Kim; Par. [7])
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Da Silva and Kim, specifically Da Silva discloses wherein the at least one channel condition comprises a channel quality, a channel stability, a channel scenario and a channel performance requirement (See Par. [99], [103], [120] of Da Silva for a reference to the UE performs periodic measurements to derive the channel quality, which can be in terms of RSRP, RSRQ, SINR or any other quality metrics).
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Da Silva and Kim, specifically Da Silva discloses wherein the channel quality comprises at least one of a signal-to-noise ratio (SNR), a reference signal received power (RSRP) and a received signal strength indication (RSSI), the channel stability comprises at least one of a temperature and a mobility, the channel scenario comprises at least one of a traffic and a throughput, and the channel performance requirement comprises at least one of a block error (BLER), a cyclic redundancy check (CRC) result, a synchronization, a radio link monitoring (RLM) and a beam management (BM) (See Par. [99], [103], [120] of Da Silva for a reference to the UE performs periodic measurements to derive the channel quality, which can be in terms of RSRP, RSRQ, SINR or any other quality metrics).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Da Silva and Kim, specifically Da Silva discloses wherein the determining the RS reception scheduling further comprises: determining, by the processor, the RS reception scheduling based on the detection result and beam types(See Par. [76], [151], [222] of Da Silva for a reference to the adjusted parameters for RS reception is determined based on the detection of a CH condition, as well as on beam/group of beams granularity).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Da Silva and Kim, specifically Da Silva discloses wherein the RS reception scheduling is associated with different types of RSs (See Par. [113] of Da Silva for a reference to the detected CH condition is associated with the RS type used for measurements. RS types, includes SSBs, CSI-RSs, DMRSs, TRSs, etc.).
Regarding claim 11, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 1, including an apparatus for dynamically adjusting reference signal (RS) reception (See Da Silva; Fig. 11; UE 1102), comprising: a transceiver (See Da Silva; Fig. 11; Signaling Unit 1108 & Receiving Unit 1110); and a processor, coupled to the transceiver (See Da Silva; Fig. 11; Determining Unit 1104).
Regarding claim 16, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 6.
Regarding claim 17, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 7.
Regarding claim 18, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 8.
Regarding claim 20, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 10.
6. Claims 4-5 and 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva et al. in view of Kim et al. and further in view of Park et al. (US. Pub. No. 2021/0345293 A1).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Da Silva and Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the RS reception scheduling is associated with a sleep state or an active state.
However, Park discloses wherein the RS reception scheduling is associated with a sleep state or an active state (See Par. [237]-[238] of Park for a reference to the DRX cycles [RS Reception] parameters are configured according to the UE operation modes; Wake up mode and Sleep mode).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Park to the combination of Da Silva and Kim. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by increasing throughput per user, reducing end-to-end latency, and increasing energy efficiency. (Park; Par. [3])
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Da Silva and Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the performing the RS reception further comprises: performing, by the processor, the RS reception in the sleep state and the active state or in the active state based on the RS reception scheduling.
However, Park discloses wherein the performing the RS reception further comprises: performing, by the processor, the RS reception in the sleep state and the active state or in the active state based on the RS reception scheduling (See Par. [237]-[238], [240] of Park for a reference to reference signal is monitored/received during both the UE’s sleep mode and wakeup mode, as well as in the PTW period, in which the UE switches from the sleep mode to the wakeup mode).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Park to the combination of Da Silva and Kim. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by increasing throughput per user, reducing end-to-end latency, and increasing energy efficiency. (Park; Par. [3])
Regarding claim 14, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 5.
7. Claims 9 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Da Silva et al. in view of Kim et al. and further in view of Li et al. (US. Pub. No. 2019/0150133 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Da Silva and Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the number of times of receiving the RS associated with a primary beam is more than the number of times of receiving the RS associated with a secondary beam in the RS reception scheduling.
However, Park discloses wherein the number of times of receiving the RS associated with a primary beam is more than the number of times of receiving the RS associated with a secondary beam in the RS reception scheduling (See Par. [113], [126] of Li for a reference to the number of repetition of RS reception from the frequent active beam is more than the number of repetition of RS reception from the less frequent sweep [Secondary] of the total K beams).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Li to the combination of Da Silva and Kim. The motivation for combination would be to improve network’s performance, by improving beam through detecting the degradation in channel using comparison between primary and alternative beams. (Li; Par. [114])
Regarding claim 19, the claim is interpreted and rejected for the same reason as set forth in claim 9.
Conclusion
8. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Matsumoto et al. (US 2011/0032888 A1) discloses a radio communication device which can prevent interference between SRS and PUCCH when the PUCCH transmission bandwidth fluctuates.
Kwak et al. (US 2010/0177804 A1) discloses a method of transmitting a control signal robust to a time-varying channel by using frequency domain spreading and/or time domain spreading in a wireless communication system.
Yokoyama et al. (US 2009/0303946 A1) discloses a mobile communication system for packet exchange services.
9. Any inquiry concerning this communication from the examiner should be directed to RASHA FAYED whose telephone number is (571) 270-3804. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:00AM-4:30PM.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Primary Examiner, Shah M. Rahman can be reached on (571)272-8951. 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.
/R. F./
Examiner, Art Unit 2413
/UN C CHO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2413
Prosecution Insights